NT Textual Criticism

Luke 20:19 "the people" (ton laon) SWANSON

2011-10-28T02:27:00.000-07:00

Re: Luke 20:19 "the people" (ton laon) SWANSON

Swanson: Luke 20:19 (340-341) gives the following interesting set of variants:
(in three pieces:)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

λικμησει αυτον (19) Και εζητησαν οι γραμματεις και οι                                   B A K L M U W Θ Π f1 f13 33 uw
λικμησει αυτον (19) Και εζητουν    οι γραμματεις και οι                                        C
λικμησει αυτον (19) Και εζητουν    οι αρχιερεις      και οι                                          D 1071
λικμησει αυτον (19) Και εζητησαν οι αρχιερεις     και οι πρεσβυτεροι και οι      69
λικμησει αυτον (19) Και εζητησαν οι αρχιερεις και οι                                          Aleph Maj N Γ Δ Λ 2 28 157 565 579 700 1424 τ
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

αρχιερεις      επιβαλειν επ αυτον τας χειρας εν αυτη ωρα, και     εφοβηθησαν            B A L M U W f1 f13 33 uw
φαρισαιοι επιβαλειν επ αυτον    χειρας εν αυτη ωρα, και       εφοβηθησαν            C
γραμματεις   επιβαλειν επ αυτον τας χειρας      αυτη ωρα,          εφοβηθησαν   δε     D
αρχιερεις       επιβαλειν επ αυτον την χειρα   εν αυτη ωρα, και    εφοβηθησαν           K Π
αρχιερεις       επιβαλειν επ αυτον τας χειρας εν αυτη ωρα, και και εφοβηθησαν           Θ
γραμματεις     επιβαλειν επ αυτον τας χειρας εν αυτη ωρα, και     εφοβηθησαν           28
γραμματεις     επιβαλειν επ αυτον τας χειρας εν αυτη ωρα, και       εφοβηθησαν           Aleph Maj N Γ Δ Λ Ψ 69 2 157 565 579 700 1071 1424 τ
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

τον λαον    εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους ειπεν    την παραβολην ταυτην                     B Aleph-c L f13 157 uw
τον λαον οτι προς αυτους ειπεν    την παραβολην ταυτην                     Aleph*
τον λαον    εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους ειρηκεν την παραβολην ταυτην                 D
εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους ειπεν      την παραβολην ταυτην                     G
εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους    την παραβολην ταυτην ειπεν         S Y Λ Ω 565 700* 1424
τον οχλον εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους       την παραβολην ταυτην ειπεν        N W Ψ
τον λαον    εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους         την παραβολην                ειπεν       579
τον λαον    εγνωσαν γαρ οτι προς αυτους    την παραβολην ταυτην ειπεν         A C Maj K M U Δ Θ Π f1 2 33
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

mr.scrivener

O'Neill's Magic Marker Binge (Galatians)

2011-10-06T15:12:00.000-07:00

O'Neill's Magic-Marker Binge

In 1972, J. C. O'Neill published The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, (SPCK, 1972). In it, he abandons conventional textual criticism entirely, and turns to the conjectural source-theories and the so-called historical-criticism of the 19th century. We will look in vain for manuscript support for the many deletions O'Neill proposes. His claim would be that all the real alterations took place in the first 150 years of copying.

What is perhaps most amazing to the ordinary Christian (student or scholar), is his attempt to re-instate the 'authority' of Holy Scripture on the basis of such a drastically mutilated 'original text'. One can't help but suspect a lot of other baggage has been secretly brought into the decision-making process.

As expected, O'Neill (in 1972) wrongly imagines that the text has suffered mainly from 'interpolation' and 'glossing', rather than omission, as later studies indicate:

"If I am right, and if that history [of Galatians] was a history of continual expansion as explanatory and expository notes were added to the text, we may now understand more clearly that the incorporation of Paul's epistles into the canon at all was no arbitrary whim of the 2nd century Church. If I am right, Paul's epistles were regarded as in some sense regulative, authoritative, yes, canonical, from a very early date. Only such [a class of] writings are reflected upon, preached from, interpolated, and glossed. Only law codes and revered writings suffer that sort of treatment.
The original interpolators and glossators probably did not intend their reflections to be incorporated in to the text, but the Church, like the ancient lawyers, probably thought it wise to adopt the dictum, "Always take account of the gloss with the text.", and the scribes, in any case, would be careful to omit nothing, as they copied the sacred words."
( - O'Neill, p.12)

One can only be stunned by the ingeniousness of this attempt to both hack to pieces, and simultaneously praise the "authority" of Holy Scripture. To note just a few of the more blatant absurdities,

(1) The fact that "Paul's epistles were regarded as ...authoritative, yes, canonical, from a very early date" doesn't depend upon O'Neill being right in any meaningful way. Most conservative Christian scholars manage to grant Paul early canonical status without having to hack Galatians to pieces.
(2) Most commentators have been noting that Paul's canonical status 'was no ordinary whim of the 2nd century Church' for hundreds of years before O'Neill's "insights" surfaced.
(3) There is no evidence of any 'ancient lawyers' of the Church dictating what the text of Paul's letters should be so that manuscripts would then contain a controlled, uniformly edited text. All early evidence indicates the opposite.
(4) 'in any case the scribes were [sadly not so] careful to omit nothing'. In fact, omissions by homoeoteleuton appear 2 to 10 times more numerous than insertions and glosses.

In the same manner as others have graphically displayed the results of textual criticism by the modernist school, we have chosen to show the consequences of following O'Neill's conjectural emendations of Galatians by indicating his deletions with strike-through and color-codes below.

A careful perusal of the verses and phrases O'Neill has chosen to delete reveals not only a hidden agenda with an apparent Unitarian bias, but a severe hostility toward some of the most famous and trusted passages of Paul's thought. If O'Neill is'right', we are expected to abandon almost every argument and saying of Christian substance and Pauline distinction. This would include:

(1) history of Paul's prior persecution of the Church.(ch 1)
(2) history of Paul/Peter in regard to Jews and Gentile missions (ch 2)
(3) Paul's famous line about Abraham (3:6)
(4) Paul's famous argument on a single Hebrew letter (3:16)
(5) Paul's description of the Law as 'schoolmaster' (3:23-25)
(6) Paul's famous equality statement (3:28)
(7) Paul's exposition on 'heir' (4:1-4)
(8) Paul's discussion of former idolatry (4:8-10)
(9) Paul's explanation of the motives of Judaizers (4:17)
(10) Paul's argument from the typology of Hagar/ Sarah (4:24-27,30)
(11) Paul's list of typical sins, (5:13-21)
(12) The Famous "Fruit of the Spirit/Love" passage (5:22-6:10)
(13) The "Israel of God" note. (6:16)

The skeleton that O'Neill leaves behind can only be described as a 'nothing letter', written by a nobody, and offering neither the Galatians nor modern readers anything to boast about. This finally, is the "authoritative, yes, canonical" substitute O'Neill would have us replace the cherished Epistle to the Galatians with:

	Galatians 1
1.	Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2.	And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3.	Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4.	Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5.	To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6.	I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7.	Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8.	But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9.	As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10.	For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11.	But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12.	For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13.	For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14.	And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15.	But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16.	To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17.	Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18.	Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19.	But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20.	Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21.	Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22.	And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23.	But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24.	And they glorified God in me.
.
	Galatians 2
1.	Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2.	And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3.	But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4.	And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5.	To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6.	But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7.	But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8.	(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9.	And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10.	Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11.	But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12.	For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13.	And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14.	But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15.	We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16.	Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17.	But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18.	For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19.	For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20.	I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21.	I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
.
	Galatians 3
1.	O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2.	This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3.	Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4.	Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5.	He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6.	Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7.	Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8.	And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9.	So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10.	For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11.	But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12.	And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13.	Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14.	That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15.	Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16.	Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17.	And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18.	For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19.	Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20.	Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21.	Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22.	But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23.	But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24.	Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25.	But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26.	For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27.	For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28.	There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29.	And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
.
	Galatians 4
1.	Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2.	But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3.	Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4.	But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5.	To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6.	And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7.	Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8.	Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9.	But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10.	Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11.	I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
12.	Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13.	Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14.	And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15.	Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
16.	Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
17.	They zealously seek you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might seek them.
18.	But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
19.	My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20.	I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21.	Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22.	For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23.	But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24.	Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25.	For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26.	But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27.	For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28.	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29.	But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30.	Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31.	So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
.
	Galatians 5
1.	Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2.	Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3.	For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4.	Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5.	For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6.	For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7.	Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8.	This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9.	A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10.	I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11.	And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12.	I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13.	For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14.	For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15.	But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16.	This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulful the lust of the flesh.
17.	For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18.	But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19.	Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20.	Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21.	Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22.	But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23.	Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24.	And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25.	If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26.	Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
	Galatians 6
1.	Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2.	Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3.	For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4.	But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5.	For every man shall bear his own burden.
6.	Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7.	Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8.	For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9.	And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
10.	As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
11.	Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
12.	As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13.	For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14.	But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15.	For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16.	And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
17.	From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
18.	Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Pauline Interpolations (2) - 1st Cor. 11:3-16

2011-09-18T01:34:00.000-07:00

'Pauline Interpolations' - 1st Cor. 11:3-16

Chapter 5 of Walker (2001) deals with 1st Cor 11:3-16.

It begins by noting that the passage "presents serious problems for the exegete".
He quotes G.D. Fee in support:

"it is full of notorious difficulties, including:
(1) the 'logic' of the argument as a whole, which in turn is related to
(2) our uncertainty about the meaning of some absolutely crucial terms and
(3) our uncertainty about prevailing customs, both in the culture(s) in general and in the church(es) in particular (including the whole complex question of early Christian worship." (Fee, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, p.492)

However, the reader is not tipped off to Fee's actual position on this passage until several pages later: "Fee characterizes my proposal as a 'counsel of despair' " (i.e., Fee is against the interpolation argument).

A review of Chapter 2 is required in order to fully assess the methodology of Walker, but those interested in textual criticism here will be interested in the short paragraph a few pages into this chapter (pg 95):

2. Text-Critical Evidence for Interpolation

There is no direct text-critical evidence suggesting that 1st Cor. 11:3-16 might be an interpolation. The passage appears in all of the extant manuscripts - and indeed at the same location in all of the manuscripts. As was noted in Chapter 2, however, the absence of direct text-critical evidence for interpolation should be seen as precisely what it is: the absence of evidence. In the face of otherwise compelling arguments for interpolation, this absence of evidence should not be allowed to decide the issue."

Wow! Internal evidence of whatever strength and nature trumps External evidence. Why? Because in the case of 'interpolations', no textual evidence is needed, and no evidence at all of an interpolation is worthless, because textual evidence is meaningless in the face of Internal evidence.

The consequences of this need to spelled out. In cases where there are no textual variants, Walker is proposing that critics are free to chop, cut and paste the text, because textual evidence in favor of a given form and content of a document are powerless next to 'solutions' that can explain a passage or verse as an interpolation.   This is 21st century textual reconstruction.

Picture how this methodology would work against the most important and difficult textual problems of the NT:

1) In case one were to argue that Mark's Ending was authentice, because its existance predates its omission, and every single ancient and modern copy of Mark has the verses, except two 4th cent. Uncials, even this is irrelevant, since "Internal Evidence" of whatever kind, makes all textual evidence, all patristic evidence, all versional evidence, moot.

2) In case one were to argue that John 7:53-8:11 was authentic, because it is referenced as Holy Scripture from the mid-300's forward, is quoted dozens of Early Christian Writers, and has been considered a part of the text of John for nearly 2,000 years, and that the structural, thematic, and linguistic evidence affirms its origin and position in John, we can throw all that out.   What matters is whether the passage has 'features of an interpolation'. This will override any and all other forms of evidence and argument, even if that evidence is contradictory Internal Evidence!

Of course, many critics would love to practice a form of "reasoned eclecticism" that allowed such a free reign over the text. Each such critic would embrace the power power to pick and choose his own NT.   But how far now have we strayed from any and every scientific historical-critical method, in adopting such a subjective, conjectural approach?

What has gone wrong here? Walker proposes erasing all distinction between conjectures about proto-texts, sources, methods of composition, and conservative textual criticism, which involves the assessment and application of actual hard historical documentary evidence.

In the past, textual criticism was distinguished as the task of discovering the original text, or at least arriving at the earliest and most primitive archetype, using the extant evidence, including manuscripts, patristic, and versional evidence. It was from the beginning recognized as having higher authority than mere conjectural exercises, or even ancient and respectable church traditions, never mind literary criticism.

Literary criticism was distinguished as an investigation into the composition of those texts, the detection of sources, authors' editorial and stylistic practices, motivations and concerns, purpose of writing, and the process of construction.   This was openly admitted to be a 'softer science' type investigation, a nebulous, conjectural realm, with a tentative and provisional character.

In the past, Literary Criticism was a humble, if fascinating inquiry behind the scenes, with much the same authority as movie reviews and excursions into the intent of play-writers. It never exalted itself to the status of historical investigations, political analysis, economic theory, or theological construction.

But Walker seems to imagine that Literary Criticism now reigns supreme over even the hardcore historicity of extant manuscripts, patristic quotations, and versional disclosure.

mr.scrivener

W. Walker, Jr., - Pauline Interpolations (1)

2011-09-13T21:27:00.000-07:00

William O. Walker, Jr., Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 213. Sheffield Academic Press 2001.

This book new comes in around $150, too much for most people's budgets; but exposure and analysis of Walker's arguments here is rather important, especially for those who value Majority-Text arguments.

There is a preview of portions of the book here at Googlebooks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_f7xSvf10LIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=\
false

And a few scattered reviews, such as here:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/walker_interpolations.htm

- for convenience, here are the passages which Walker proposes are
interpolations:

"Professor Walker devotes a chapter apiece to discussing the debates over and the case for seeing as interpolations

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (silencing women);
11:3-16 (the veiling of prophetesses);
2:6-16 (secret wisdom about the archons of this age and the deep things of God);
12:31b-14:1a (the "love chapter"); and
Romans 1:18-2:29 (the sins of idolaters; the parity of righteous Jews and Gentiles).

Then, more briefly, he presents the basics of the case for seeing another group of texts as interpolations, skipping the refutations and counter-refutations:

Romans 16:25-27 (the doxology);
2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 (unequal yoking with unbelievers and Beliar);
1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 (God's judgment on persecuting Jews);
Romans 13:1-7 (obey the authorities);
1 Corinthians 10:1-22 (idols are devils in disguise).

And he says, in effect, that interpolations are like cockroaches: if you can spot some, there must be a lot more lurking somewhere.

And he lists passages that have attracted scholarly stares of suspicion:
1 Corinthians 1:2; 4:17; 6:14; 7:29-31; 11:23-26; 15:3-11; 15:21-22; 15:31c; 15:44b-48; 15:56; Galatians 2:7-8; Philippians 1:1c; 2:6-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; 4:10b-12; 4:18; 5:1-11; 5:27.

And of course J.C. O'Neill (whose views of Romans 1:18-2:29 he accepts) posited a number of other interpolations in Romans and Galatians."

mr.scrivener

James Snapp Jr. on the colophons for Mark's Ending

2011-09-10T10:44:00.000-07:00

I have taken this verbatum from Willker's TC-List, with some added formatting:

--------------------------------------- QUOTE ---

Post #6619:

Regarding the question about how many copies of Mark have annotations, and the nature of those annotations, here is an excerpt from a lecture I plan to give in the near future, covering that very subject. Once we set aside copies in which the annotations is simply the Commentary of Victor of Antioch, here is what we have:

". . . . That note in the Commentary of Victor of Antioch is not the only note that should be considered when evaluating the evidence about the ending of Mark.
Bruce Metzger wrote that

"Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document." (Bruce Metzger, p. 123, A Textual Commentary on the Greek N. T., � 1971 by the United Bible Societies.)

The second part of Dr. Metzger's statement is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, not a single manuscript that does not have a note about the passage has been shown to place asterisks or obeli alongside it to convey scribal doubt about the passage. When copyists wanted to signify doubt about a large passage, they ordinarily placed a *series* of asterisks or other marks alongside it. But the marks that have been claimed to signify scribal doubt about the passage in unannotated manuscripts are solitary. I looked into this, and in every case that I could track down, where the presence of a mark at Mark 16:9 has been verified, and it does not refer to a note in the margin, the same mark appears elsewhere in the same manuscript at places where there is no textual issue, but there is a lection-division."

(Time out. See, regarding this, my earlier posts about those copies here at textualcriticism. There is still one MS in Spain that I have not been able to check out. But it's a MS with a commentary accompanying the text. Time in.)

"In other words, these manuscripts were studied superficially, and marks that were made as part of the lectionary apparatus were misidentified as if they were made to convey scribal doubt. In the real world, instead of conveying scribal doubt, they do just the opposite, showing that the passage was expected to be read in the churches as a normal part of the church-services on Ascension-day, and as part of an eleven-part series of readings about Christ's resurrection.

What about the manuscripts that contain notes? There is no reason to vaguely refer to this as "not a few" copies. They consist of 14 copies in three specific groups:

The first group is manuscripts 20, 215, and 300. Manuscripts 215 and 300 are sister-manuscripts. 20 and 300 both feature the "Jerusalem Colophon," stating that the text was checked using the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem. At or near Mark 16:9, a note in these three manuscripts says, "From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact." The facts thus give a very different impression from what one gets by reading Metzger! Instead of "stating that older Greek copies lack" verses 9-20, this note affirms that although some copies lack the passage, the ancient ones include it. And from the "Jerusalem Colophon," it may be deduced that the ancient copies being referred to are those "ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem."

There is simply no way that anyone could reasonably draw from this evidence the conclusion that the annotator intended to guide the reader to reject the passage. This note does just the opposite, by affirming that Mark 16:9-20 is in the ancient copies.

The second group consists of some members of family-1, specifically, 1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582. The Gospels-text in these copies, to one extent or another, is Caesarean. The note in these five manuscripts runs as follows:

"Now in some of the copies, the evangelist's work is finished here, as is also Eusebius Pamphili's canonization. But in many, this also appears."

In Codices 1 and 1582, this note is not in the margin; it is situated directly above verse 9.

This note informs the reader that "some copies" stop the text at the end of verse 8, and that the Eusebian Canons do not include Mark 16:9 to 20, but that many copies include verses 9-20. In addition, even though the note explicitly says that the Eusebian Sections stop at verse 8, the Section-numbers in 1 and 1582 include the passage: Section 234 begins at 16:9, Section 235 begins at 16:10, and Section 236 begins at 16:12.

The third group consists of five secondary members of family-1: specifically, manuscripts 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210. In these manuscripts, a note before verse nine says,

"In some of the copies, the Gospel is completed here, but in many, this also appears."

This is basically the same note in Codices 1 and 1582, minus the phrase about the Eusebian Canons. Somebody, at a time and place where the Eusebian Canons had been expanded so as to include the passage, removed the phrase about the Eusebian Canons, because it appeared not to be true.

There is one more manuscript with a note about Mark 16:9-20: minuscule 199, which was made in the 1100's. Referring to verses 9-20, a brief note in minuscule 199 says, "In some of the copies, this does not occur, but it stops here." Although this note's wording is unique, Minuscule 199 should be classified with the first group of manuscripts that have the "Jerusalem Colophon." Its text in Luke is aligned with the text of the Luke found in another codex, which is partly uncial Lambda and partly minuscule 566; in that manuscript, the "Jerusalem Colophon" appears at the end of each Gospel.

So: we are dealing with just fourteen annotated manuscripts. And we are not dealing with 14 independent notes: the notes found in 199, 20, 215, and 300, are related, via a link to the manuscripts mentioned in the "Jerusalem Colophon." Codices 1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582 share the same note because they share the same ancestor-manuscript. And, the note in codices 15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210 is the same note that is in Codex 1, except the phrase about the Eusebian Canons has been removed.

Plus, with the exception of the short note in minuscule 199, these notes appear to have been written, not to raise doubts about the passage, but to assure the reader that the passage is authentic, being found in either the ancient copies, or in many copies." [end of James' tentative lecture]

There you have it.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

----------------------------------------------------
Message #6623:

"The first set of annotated manuscripts to examine consists of manuscripts 20, 215, and 300. They share a very similar text, and manuscripts 20 and 300 appear to be among the few manuscripts which can confidently be considered sisters; that is, they shared the same exemplar. Burgon noticed that in both of these manuscripts, in the Gospel of Mark, which is accompanied in both manuscripts by Victor of Antioch's commentary (though in each it is attributed to Cyril of Alexandria), although the number of lines per page is different, "every page begins with the same syllable, both of Text and Commentary." [See page 289 of Burgon's 1871 book The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark Vindicated, in Appendix D.]

In addition, manuscripts 20, 215, and 300 all feature, in one form or another, the Jerusalem Colophon. This is an annotation, found in 37 Greek manuscripts, which states that the manuscript has been checked using the ancient and approved copies at Jerusalem.

In 20 and 300, the colophon states after the end of Mark,

ευαγγέλιον

κατα Μάρκον

εγράφη και

αντεβλήθη

ομοίως εκ των

εσπουδασμένων

στίχοις αφς′

κεφαλαίοις

σλξ′,
that is, "The Gospel according to Mark, similarly written and checked from the best copies - 1,700 lines, 237 chapters (or, sections)."

In 300, the colophon at the end of the Gospel of Matthew says,

ευαγγέλιον

κατα Ματθαιον

εγράφη και

αντεβλήθη εκ

των

‛Ιεροσολύμοις

παλαιων

αντιγράφων, εν

στίχοις βφιδ′

"The Gospel according to Matthew, written and checked from the old copies at

Jerusalem, in 2,514 lines."
[For further details see Tommy Wasserman's article "The Greek New Testament Manuscripts in Sweden with an Excursus on the Jerusalem Colophon", in Svensk Exegetisk Ǻrsbok, 2010.]

Manuscripts 20, 215, and 300 have the following note at, or near, Mark 16:9 (with some words abbreviated):

εντευθεν

εως του τέλους

εν τισι των

αντιγράφων ου

κειται· εν δε

τοις αρχαίοις

πάντα

απαράλειπτα

κειται"

"From here to the end forms no part of the text in some of the copies. But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact."

In 20 and 300, this note is not located at the beginning of 16:9; it
is located, as Burgon stated, "in the wrong place in both of them, viz. at the
close of ver. 15, where it interrupts the text." However, this does not indicate that the copyist was confused; only that he was forgetful: the copyist placed the note in a convenient place on the page, and forgot to add asterisks to direct the reader to the beginning of verse nine.

[See pages 118-119 of Burgon's 1871 book The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark Vindicated, especially the footnotes, and compare to this pages 365 and 366 of C. R. Williams' article "The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark", in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 18, Feb. 1915, Yale University Press.]

Also, if you download the 242-page French Intro to NTTC by J.P.P. Martin, on page 14 (as digitally counted) you can see a reproduction of the pertinent page (140r) of Codex 20.

Is there anything else that needs clarification?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

------------------------------ END QUOTE ---

Thanks for this to James, from
mr.scrivener

On the Medical Language of St. Luke

2011-09-04T13:08:00.000-07:00

We get early well-articulated notice of Luke's medical language from M.F. Sadler, The Gospel Acc. to St. Luke, (1890, NY): Introduction:

" MEDICAL LANGUAGE OF ST. LUKE.
'I have given in an excursus at the conclusion of my notes on the Acts of the Apostles some instances of the use of medical language by St. Luke. This subject seems exhausted in a treatise by the Rev. W. K. Hobart, of Trinity College, Dublin, "The Medical Language of St. Luke." He seems to prove very clearly, not only that St. Luke uses medical terms in describing the miracles of healing, which the other Evangelists do not use, but that his vocabulary is that of one who had received a medical education and studied medical treatises; and when writing respecting non-medical matters he yet uses very many words which Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, and other Greek physicians were in the habit of employing even when not writing on diseases and their remedies. To give Dr. Hobart's own words,

"There is a class of words running through the third Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, and for the most part peculiar to these books of the New Testament writings, with which a medical man must have been familiar, as they formed part of the ordinary phraseology of Greek medical language. In thus using words to which he had become habituated through professional training, St. Luke would not be singular, for the Greek medical writers, also, when dealing with unprofessional subjects, show a leaning to the use of words to which they were accustomed in their professional language."

I wish I could now give instances. ...So that a searching examination of St. Luke's phraseology yields a striking confirmation to the truth of the words of the Apostle, which describe him as a physician.'

To find detailed description of this language, however, we will have to turn to such above mentioned published works. Hobart's book is out of copyright, but is online at Archive.Org.

Preface: "...In order to bring the work withing reasonable bounds, It was found necessary that the number of examples of the medical use of a word should not, in any case, exceed ten; in many instances they could be cited indefinitely. ...An asterisk has been prefixed to those words which are peculiar to the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and also to a few words, which, though not peculiar to these writings, are used in them alone of the NT in a medical sense."

Examples:

(1) Luke 4:23 Ιατρε, θεραπευσον σεαυτον (cf. Galen Comm. vi. (xvii. B. 151)

(2) Healing of Demoniac Luke 4:35 *ριψαν, μηδεν βλαψαν αυτον (cf. Hippocrates, Epid. 1160)
...

Consulting the Table of Contents allows for a quick listing of important cases. Citations in non-Biblical medical works are found in the main text.

mr.scrivener

The Premature ABU Revised Version NT (1860)

2011-09-04T10:36:00.000-07:00

Not to be confused with the American Sunday School Union, the American Bible Union (ABU) offered a series of books in the 1850-1880 period, notably:

1857 - The Book of Job ; the Common English Version the Hebrew Text and the Revised Version of the American Bible Union, by Conant, (ABU, 1857)

1858 - The Gospel According to Mark translated from the Greek on the basis of the Common English Version. With Notes.

1860 - Notes on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, as the basis of a Revision of the Common English Version; and a Revised Version, with notes. (anon., apparently written by Horatio B. Hackett) (ABU, 1860).

1861 - Tne Meaning and Use of BAPTIZEIN philologically and historically investigated, by CONANT, T.J.(1861), 8vo.

1865 - The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ The Common English Version, Corrected By the Final Committee of the American Bible Union (1865, 2nd Revision, reprinted, 1873)

1868? - The Book of Genesis the Common Version Revised for the American Bible Union with Explanatory Notes, Conant (1868?)

1873 - Bible Primer, To Teach The Millions To Read God's Word. (Anon., ABU, 1873)

(A more complete list of these proto-Revised-Version attempts can be found here:
http://bibles.wikidot.com/abufirst-quartos
)

This earlier more conservative attempt at revision (pre RV 1881) shows more clearly what was originally intended by the Americans, and what sources were used.

Insight into the origin and intent of the American early revisers can be found scattered among the prefaces and introductions to these preliminary publications, as well in the the books independently published by these same authors.

For example, On page v. of the intro for the Gospel of Mark (1858), we get:

Critical Editions of the Greek Testament [consulted]:

1809 - Griesbach
1820 - Knapp
1830 - Fritzche GNT w. Comm.
1839[?] Bloomfield GNT w. Comm. [1839-1847]
1842 - Tittman, ed. Prof. Robinson NY
1846 - Lachmann [2nd critical ed]
1850 - Scholz (Bagster's)
1850 - Tischendorf [3rd ed.?]
1856 - Theile

As well as Five Editions of the TR:

1653 - Erasmus
1624 - Elzevir / 1707 - Mill (Bagster's)
1831 - Leusden (reprinted)
1831 - Prof. Wilson's ed.
???? - emendations from Robinson's Harmony of the Gospels.

IN that same edition, we are given the
General Rules for th Direction of Translators and Revisers employed by the ABU"

" 1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the
time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding words and phrases, so far as they can be found, in the vernacular
tongue of those for whom the version is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness.

" 2. Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with
the established phraseology shall be avoided ; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text
and the existing state of the language may require.

" 3. Translatious or revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the received Greek text, critically edited, with known
errors corrected.

"SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REVISERS OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.

"1. The Common English Version must be the basis of the revision: the Greek Text, Bagster & Sons' octavo edition ['TR' = Scholz]
of 1851.

" 2. Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any authority additional to that of the reviser, such authority must
be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page or in an appendix.

" 3. Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which the phraseology of the Common Version is changed, must be
carefully examined in every other place in which it occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the reviser be given as
to its proper translation in each place."

-------------------

These rules seem to have allowed an unforeseen degree of freedom in regard to the original Greek, an ambiguity which other parts of the rules clearly intended to avoid (the potential for and real abuse of such well-intended rules in regard to the English Revised Version is well-documented).

But in spite of conservative sentiments and attempts to contain revision within reasonable limits, there was an ethos, a rather less precise and dangerously vague attitude among these early revisers, which left them and their work open to tragic errors in their handling of the NT text.

We can find revealing glimpses of some of this attitude in other publications, not directly under control of the ABU.

For instance, Horatio b. Hackett had already published:

1858 - A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles H.B. Hackett (revised 1858),

On the one hand, Hackett encourages a healthy Protestant historical/critical approach. In regard to Acts, he says,

"No person can be prepared to read the Epistles of the NT with the greatest advantage until he has made himself familiar with the external history of the Apostle Paul, and with his character and spirit, as Luke has portrayed him in his narrative. Those portions...must be thoroughly mastered before any proper foundation is laid for exegetical study of the Epistles."

Again, Hackett explains,

"It is the object of these notes to assist the reader in the acquisition of this knowledge and discipline; to enable him to form his own independent view of the meaning of the sacred writer..., and at the same time, furnish himself to some extent with those principles and materials of criticism which are common to all parts of the Bible. ...and to promote a habit of careful study and of self-reliance ...a result beyond any other which the writer has been anxious to accomplish. ...The grammatical references and explanations will enable the student to judge of the consistency of the interpretations given with the laws of Greek language. The authorities cited will show the state of critical opinion on all passages that are supposed to be uncertain or obscure."

(- H.B. Hackett, Preface to Acts, Newton Theol. Inst., Oct 31, 1851)

So far, so good. But now let us turn to another book, perhaps where Hackett has expressed himself in a more unguarded fashion. In his Notes on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, (ABU, 1860), Hackett explains more clearly his idea of Bible translation:

"An exposition of the text, as a mental process at least, on the part of the interpreter (though the results may not be written out), must precede a translation. The Notes, therefore, here laid before the reader, have the same interest and value as a means of understanding the text of the Epistle, as if they were unaccompanied by a revision of the Common English Version.
But the other portion of the work has also its separate claims on the attention of the Biblical student. An addition of this nature has become, within a few years, a common feature in the best exegetical works published in this country, and in
England. The fact sets forth an important truth. It is felt more and more that critical attempts to explain the meaning of the Scriptures should, as the proper test of their definiteness and precision, terminate in an endeavor to express the sense as nearly as possible in our own language ; and furthermore, that they must assume this form, in order to render such studies available in any great degree to the bulk of English readers.
The topic last suggested here deserves a word further. This matter of the history of the current translation of the Bible, and a comparison of its renderings, with those of the preceding translations,* out of which the Common Version has arisen, are opening to us a range of study, comparatively new and attractive certainly to those who enter upon it. Some of the best scholars of the day are giving their attention to it. The student of English literature will reap profit as well as gratification from it.

The different epochs of our language are well marked in the style of the different versions. We learn, thence, that the English race, even since the dawn of Protestantism, and during some of the most effective periods of the national development, have not been dependent upon any single translation of the Bible, but have received their knowledge of the gospel through various channels. It is no disservice to be taught that the power of Christianity resides in its doctrines and ideas, and not in any set of words or phrases which it may outgrow with the advance of Biblical science, and the mutations of language, and must then, or should, discard for other forms. It is seen from such recurrence to the past, to be the wisdom of the church, to which have been committed the Oracles of God, to open promptly every source of religious knowledge to the many as well as the few. The names of Wiclif, Tyndale, Frith, Coverdale, are witnesses how slowly this truth has made its way in the world, in regard to the use and treatment of translations of the Sacred word into the vernacular tongue of a people. The history of the English Bible has been, from first to last, a singular history of conflicts between an excessive conservatism on the one hand, and the promptings of a more expansive religious spirit on the other, and a history, at the same time, of victories on the side of truth and progress. It is well that the public mind is turning itself back to inquiries which are so interesting and adapted to reassert and enforce principles of vital importance.

There is much misapprehension still, I imagine, respecting the precise nature of the enterprise, in the interest of which this volume has been prepared. The object is not to supersede, but revise the current Version of the English Scriptures. A new translation of the original text, and a revision of the translation of that text, are very diflferent things; and yet, different as they are, are confounded by many persons who would not be unfriendly to what is attempted, if they would keep in mind this important distinction. It is not proposed to discard the present Version; to cast away its manifold advantages ; to introduce rash and doubtful innovations ; to substitute a cumbrous Latinized style for the simple, nervous, idiomatic English, which brings the familiar Version so home to the hearts of the people ; but simply to do upon the work of our translators what they did upon that of their predecessors; to survey it afresh in the light of the knowledge which has been gained during the more than two centuries since they passed away ; to make such changes, and such only, as the general verdict of the best scholarship of the age has pronounced to be due to truth and fidelity ; to make these changes in a style of delicate harmony with the present language of the English Bible ; to confirm its accuracy, where it is correct, against false or unsupported interpretations, as well as to amend it where it is confessedly incorrect ; and thus, in a word, carry forward from our position, if we might, the labors of the revisers (for such they were) of James' age, as they carried forward the labors of the generations before them.
On some other occasion I may have an opportunity to speak of the Greek text on which the revision is founded, and some other kindred topics. I have endeavored to unfold the contents of the Epistle with candor and impartiality, and would hope that those who may examitie the work will judge of it in the same spirit. ...
------------------------------------
* It can not have escaped notice that the various English readings have began to form an important new material in our works of Biblical criticism. Professor Alexander of the Princeton Theological Seminary, whose recent death is a calamity to the cause of sacred learning, has enriched greatly his New Testament Commentaries by his copious illustrations of this character. "

The important idea here is the concept of "dynamic" or idiomatic translation, although it is not yet articulated with any sensible scientific restraint. The view promotes the idea of multiple forms of verbal expression, i.e., with all translations being somehow equal or equally inspired.

Certainly accuracy and precision in translation indeed requires idiomatic forms, and may also require language updating as language evolves. But the dangerous effect of free expression, namely corrosion of meaning and the authority of the written, inspired word of God, has simply not yet occurred to American Protestants (c. 1860s).

The natural evolution of the unrestrained idea, is that if God's word can have many forms, and if some forms seem contradictory, or remove, or add to other forms, these forms can be and must be error-prone, if not error-ridden. Its a short step from here to assigning an equally low priority and accuracy to ANY form of the word of God, with the attendant consequences, namely that people will pick and choose what they perceive to be "the word of God", inevitably selecting what is convenient and appealing, while rejecting what is inconvenient or unappealing. Which is precisely the state of confusion over modern 'versions' that we have now.

mr.scrivener

Scholarly 19th cent. NT Books for sale!

2011-08-31T13:21:00.000-07:00

Here is an example of some interesting volumes that others might want:

Analecta Theologica - William Trollope (1842) 'New ed.' - 2 vols.

Click to Enlarge and backbutton to return

I had a friend in printing bus. trim some of these books, and I rebound them.
Other than minimal (expected) foxing, and slight waving of textblock,
solid, like-new condition. 8vo quarter-leather new front/back and endpapers:

Commentary: Gospels/Acts - Benson (1850) Vol IV (key vol. ) large 8vo

This came to me like an ancient spellbook (its also huge but surprisingly light);
I restored the Spine and board connections with leather, reinforcing with heavy linen and stitching, and lacquered the boards. I used minimal intervention here to preserve the look and feel.

H KAINH DIATHKH - Bloomfield (1839) 2 vols. 8vo

This is the definitive Greek NT (GNT) with extensive notes in English for the 1800-1850s. These were varathaned and only hinges were reinforced with carpenter's glue. Great shape for their age, hardly read if at all.

Greek Testament - Wordsworth (1859) 2 vols. LARGE 8vo (see photo) 4vo?

This is the rarest of rare editions of this 7-edition run.
That white is real virgin-vellum, an expensive fad never to be reproduced again.
Crappy 2 vol. sets of this book (without the vellum) are typically priced between $200-800 AM. The vellum is like new, and so are the volumes. Heavy gold titling.
I loved these so much I built a box for them. The golden age of British NT scholarship, never to be repeated.

If you are interested in any of these lovely books, leave a note below and/or email me at mr.scrivener@yahoo.com.

Constantine and Crispus (1): What is known?

2011-08-19T05:06:00.000-07:00

Emperor Constantine

Emperor Constantine had a son Flavius Julius Crispus (b. 305), who was a co-regent with his father until his unfortunate death in 326.

Perhaps the best and most accurate summary of Crispus' death is given at Roman Emperors.org, (from Hans Pohlsander) as far as it can be substantiated and documented:

"Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death. (16) We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the Consularia Constantinopolitana,(17) and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. (18) The circumstances, however, are less clear. Zosimus (6th c.) (19) and Zonaras (12th c.) (20) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship. There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but it is certain that at some time during the same year the emperor ordered the death of his own wife as well, (21) and the two cases must be considered together. (22) That Crispus and Fausta plotted treason is reported by Gregory of Tours, (23) but not very believable. We must resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus (24) that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins. A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate. (25) We must also, I think, reject the suggestion of Guthrie (26) that the emperor acted in the interest of "dynastic legitimacy," that is, that he removed his illegitimate first-born son in order to secure the succession for his three legitimate younger sons. But Crispus must have committed, or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense to earn him a sentence of death from his own father. He also suffered damnatio memoriae, (27) his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children).
16. Hieron. De Vir. Ill. 80; Euseb.-Hieron. Chron. Olymp. 276 (ed. Fotheringham 313; ed. Helm 231); Aur. Vict. Caes. 41.11.
17. Sub anno 326 (MGH, AA IX 232).
18. 14.11.20.
19. 2.29.1-2.
20. 13.2.38-41.
21. Eutropius 10.6.3 (MGH, AA II 174; ad. Santini 67; ed. Friedhelm L. Müller [Stuttgart 19951 142); Aur. Vict. Epit. 41.11-12.
22. Paschoud, Cinq études 37-38, and others before him.
23. Hist. Franc., 1.34 in Migne, PL LXXI 179; 1.36 in MGH, SRM 1st ed. I 51; ibid. 2nd ed. I.1 26-27,
24. 2.29.3-4.
25. Caes. 336A-B.
26. "The Execution of Crispus" 327-28.
27. CIL II 4107; CIL III 7172; CIL V 8030; CIL IX 6386a; CIL X 517 = Dessau, ILS 708; CIL X 678 = Dessau, ILS 710.

Hans Pohlsander also gives us a concise bibliography for Crispus:

Bibliography

Recent and concise accounts of the life and career of Crispus, with reference to the scattered primary sources, are the following:
A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (Cambridge, 1971) 233.
Adolf Lippold in Der kleine Pauly V (1975) 1592.
Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge MA, 1982) 7-8, 44, and 83-84.
Ingemar König, Origo Constantini: Anonymus Valesianus (Trier, 1987) 136-38.
Dietmar Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1996) 305-306.
The account by Otto Seeck, RE IV.2 (1901) 1722-24, has become in part obsolete.
More extensive or specialized studies are:
Josef Steinhausen, "Hieronymus und Laktanz in Trier," TZ 20 (1951) 126-54.
Patrick Guthrie, "The Execution of Crispus," Phoenix 20 (1966) 325-31.
Timothy D. Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine," JRS 63 (1973) 29-46.
François Paschoud, Cinq études sur Zosime (Paris, 1975) 24-39.
Hans A. Pohlsander, "Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End," Historia 33 (1984) 79-106.
Klaus Kremer, "Laktanz: Erzieher von Konstantins Sohn Crispus zu Trier," Kurtrierisches Jahrbuch 25 (1985) 35-59.
Samuel N. C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat, edd., From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History (London 1996). Contains translation of and commentary on the Anonymus Valesianus, Origo Constantini.
Additionally references to Crispus will be found in all of the books on Constantine.

This gives us a good start for investigating the circumstances of Crispus' death in more detail. As we will see shortly, there is a lot more to say about this than a short summary can provide.

mr.scrivener

Reading Critical Apparatus: standard signs

2011-08-14T21:37:00.000-07:00

The following symbols are from Metzger's Commentary for the UBS text:

Variant Ratings:

{A} {A} The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain.

{B} {B} The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.

{C} {C} The letter {C} indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.

{D} {D} The letter {D}, which occurs only rarely, indicates that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading.

^{Class/Group Symbols:}

Byz The reading of the majority of the Byzantine witnesses.

Lect The reading of the majority of the lectionaries selected, together with the text of the edition published by Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens.

P = Papyrus.

Comments:

al - alia (other witnesses)

bis - twice

cf. confer (compare)

i. e. - id est (that is)

e. g. - exempli gratia (for example)

^vid ^vid the most probably reading of a manuscript, where the state of its preservation makes a complete verification impossible; or the apparent support of a Church Father for the reading cited, where stylistic and contextual factors do not permit complete certainty.

^{acc. to -} ^{acc. to Jerome} variant reading of manuscript(s) according to the witness of Jerome

^{acc. to Irenaeus}^{acc. to Irenaeus} variant reading of manuscript(s) according to the witness of Irenaeus

Witness Superscripts:

¹ ^1,2,3,c Successive correctors of a manuscript in chronological sequence to the extent this can be determined. The symbol ^c at the end of the sequence refers to the latest corrector. Correlative with *.

* The original reading of a manuscript (when the reading of a manuscript has been corrected); correlative with ^c.

^a ^a Typically used to indicate the first corrector’s hand for א .

^c ^c indicates the corrector or the last of successive correctors of a manuscript.

Versions (Early Translations):

it - Old Latin

vg - Vulgate

syr - Syriac.

cop - Coptic.

goth - Gothic version.

arm - (Künzle; Zohrab). Armenian, from the fifth century

eth - Ethiopic, from about 500. The agreement of the following editions; for Rev the Hoffman edition is taken as the basis.

special superscripts:

^{mss -} ^mss manuscripts of an early version, or of a Church Father’s text, when differing from the edited text.

^{gr -} ^gr a citation from a Greek fragment of the work of a Greek Church Father which is preserved complete only in a translation.

^{lat -} ^lat a Latin translation of a work by a Greek Church Father which has not survived entire in its original form.

^mg - ^mg textual evidence contained in the margin of a manuscript.

^txt - ^txt the text of a manuscript of the New Testament when it differs from another reading given in the margin (^mg), or in the commetnary section (^com) which accompanies the text of a Church Father.

mss - mss - manuscripts.

^ms ^{- ms} manuscript of an early version, or of a Church Father’s text, when differing from the edited text.

^{p -} syr^p (Pusey/Gwilliam; Gwilliam/Pinkerton/Kilgour; cf. Aland/Juckel). Peshitta, first half of fifth century.

^pal syr^pal (Lewis/Gibson, Palestinian Syriac Texts; and others). Palestinian Syriac, from about the sixth century.

^h syr^h (White; Bensly; Vööbus; Aland; Aland/Juckel). Harklensis (A.D. 616).

^{h with *} syr^{h with *} A Syriac reading in the text enclosed between an asterisk and a metobelos.

^hmg syr^hmg A Syriac Variant reading in the margin. Harklensis (A.D. 616).

^sa cop^sa Sahidic (Hintze/Schenke; Horner; Kasser; Quecke; Schüssler; Thompson)

^bo cop^bo Bohairic (Horner)

^fay cop^fay Fayyumic (various fragments)

^ro eth^ro Roman edition of 1548–1549. (Ethiopic).

^pp eth^pp (Pell Platt [based on the Rome edition of 1548–49)

Early Christian Writers:

Origen (d. 253/254)

Hippolytus (d. 235)

Ambrosiaster (d. after 384)

Ambrose (d. 397)

Basil, the Great (d. 379)

Clement, of Alexandria (d. before 215)

(John) Chrysostom (d. 407)

Cyprian (d. 258)

Cyril, of Alexandria (d. 444)

Irenaeus (d. II)

Lucifer, of Calaris (d. 370/371)

Marcion^{acc. to Tertullian/Origen/Adamantius/Epiphanius} (d. II)

Pelagius (d. after 418)

Augustine (d. 430)

Speculum (d. V)

John-Damascus (d. before 754)

Methodius (d. III)

Tertullian (d. after 220)

Theodoret, of Cyrrhus (d. about 466)

Hilary (d. 367)

Maximus-Confessor (d. 662)

Valentinians^{acc. to Irenaeus/Hippolytus} (d. II)

Ptolemy^{Flora acc. to Irenaeus} (d. II)

Jerome (d. 419/420)

Sedulius Scotus (d. IX)

Eusebius, of Caesarea (d. 339)

Sturz (4): Byzantine-Papyrus Readings Acts-Rev.

2011-08-06T18:14:00.000-07:00

Here is the continuation of List 1: Distinctively Byz./Papyrus Alignments for Acts (i.e., Byz readings with Pap. support cont.)

Acts

4:33 μεγαλη δυναμει                     p45
7:14 τον πατερα αυτου Ιακωβ p45
9:3 περιησταραψεν αυτον φως    p45
9:3 απο του ουανου               p45
9:38 οκνησαι...αυτων            p45
10:37 αρξαμενον           p45
11:11 ημην               p45
13:26 απεσταλη              p45
14:15 τον θεον τον ζωντα p45
16:16 πυθωνος            p45
16:39 εξελθειν               p45
17:13 σαλευοντες         p45
23:12 τινες των Ιουδαιων p48

----------- Here are the remaining Variation Units from List 1: ---

Romans

10:14 επικαλεστονται            p46
16:23 και της εκκλησιας ολης p46

1st Cor.

4:11 γυμνητευομεν και        p46
5:10 η αρπαξιν           p46
7:5    συνερχεσθε            p46
7:7    χαρισμα εχει              p46
7:7b ος μεν ...ος δε              p46
9:7    εκ του καρπου          p46
9:21 κερδησω ανομους        p46
10:8 επεσον              p46
11:26 το ποτηριον τουτο      p46

2nd Cor.

9:10 αυξησαι              p46

Galatians

4:31 αρα            p46

Ephesians

2:12 εν τω καιρω            p46
5:9    πνευματος               p46

Philipians

1:14 τον λογον λαλειν    p46

Colossians

3:16 τω κυριω               p46
3:22 τον θεον                  p46
4:12 πεπληρωμενοι         p46

Hebrews

3:3      δοξης ουτος           p13
10:17 μνησθω                  p46
10:38 εκ πιστεως             p13
11:4    αυτου του θεου      p13
11:32 γαρ με                    p13
12:25 τον επι της γης παραιτησαμενοι p46
12:25b πολλω     p46

1st Peter

2:5 τω θεω              p72
3:7   εκκοπτεσθαι        p72
5:8   οτι ο αντιδικος p72

2nd Peter

2:4   σειραις             p72
2:5   αλλ' ογδοον     p72

Jude

25    και μεγαλωσυνη   p72
25b εξουοια                 p72

Revelation

9:20   δυναται            p47
10:2   βιβλιον             p47
10:8   ανεωγμενον     p47
11:2   εκβ. εξω           p47
11:6   παση πληγη     p47
11:12 ηκουσα           p47
11:19 διαθηκης του κυριου p47
12:7    αυτου             p47
12:9    σατανας         p47
12:13 αρρενα            p47
13:13 επι την γην     p47
14:8    εκ του             p47
15:8    εκ του             p47
16:3    εν τη θαλασση - p47
16:10 εμασσωντο - p47

---------------------- END ------------

If anyone wants more detailed apparatus for a VU ask me.

mr.scrivener

Sturz (3): Byzantine-Papyrus Readings John

2011-07-28T14:22:00.000-07:00

Continuing List 1 with Readings from John's Gospel:

1:39 ηλθαν * και P5 P ΓΔΠ unc9 700 pm c f q vg arm Κ ς

2:15 ανεστρεψεν P75 ALPΓΔΛΠ* unc9 pl (Or) Κ ς
2:24 εαυτον αυτοις P66 אc A2 PWΓΔΘΛΠ unc9 pm it-pc vg Or-pt Κ ς
4:14 διψηση P66 C3W ΛΠ unc8 pm Κ ς
4:31 εν δε τω P75 AC3ΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 pl b f ff2 m q co cy-cp (Or) Chr Cyr Κ ς
5:37 αυτος P66 AΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 pl lat sy Eus Κ ς
6:10 ωσει (P28)P66() AΓΔΘΛΠ unc9 λ φ pl Κ ς
6:57 ζησεται P66 EGHMSUVWΓΔ(Θ)ΛΠ(Ω) (unc7) λ pm lect.1561 Κ ς
7:3    θευρησωσι P66 B3XΓΔΛΠ unc8 λ pm Κ ς
7:39 πνευμα αγιον P66 LNWXΓΔΛ unc6 λ φ 33 1241 pl (sa) (0r) Ath Did Chr Cyr... Κ ς
7:40 Πολλοι P66 ΓΔΛΠ unc7 118 pl f q go sy Κ ς
8:21 αυτοις ο Ιησους p66c ΓΔΘΛΨ unc8 λ φ 33 pm lat co Chr Κ ς
8:51 το λογον τον εμον P66 ΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 λ φ pm latt sy Κ ς
8:54 δοξαζω P66 אc C2LXΓΔΛΠ unc8 pl Κ ς
9:16 αλλοι P66 P75 ALXΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 28 pm it-pl (vg) go arm sy-p Chr Κ ς
9:19 αρτι βλεπει P66 AXΓΔΛΠΨ unc7 λ φ 565 579 1241 pm co lat Κ ς
9:26 αυτω παλιν p66 AXΓΔΘΛ unc8 λ φ pl f q go (sy) arm eth Cyr Κ ς
9:28 ελοιδορησαν P66 AX ΓΔΛ unc8 φ (-69) 28 al b e l q (vg) arm Aug Κ
9:35 ειπεν αυτω P66 אcAL(X auton) ΓΔΘΛ unc7 pl sy-s lat Κ ς
10:19 σχισμα ουν παλιν P66 AΓΔΘΛΠΨ unc7 λ φ pl (bo) sy-p Chr Cyr Κ ς
10:29 ος P66 P75 AB2MUX ΓΔΘΠ (Λ ous) unc8 λ φ 33 565 pl sa sy-sph eth Κ ς
10:29b μειζων παντων εστι p66 AΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 λ φ 33 565 pl lat go sa sy-sph Bas Dial Chr Κ ς
10:31 εβαστασαν ουν παλιν P66 AXΠ unc-rell λ 565 pl (sy) Κ ς
10:32 πατρος μου P66(P75)אc ALWX unc-rell λ φ pl lat Κ ς
10:38 πιστευσατε P45 P66 AEGHMSXΓ Λ λ φ 118 209 pl Ath Bas Chr Κ ς
10:38b αυτω P45 AΓΔΘΛΠ unc7 λ φ pl b f ff2 l go sy-p Cyp Κ ς
11:19 προς τας περι (P45) AC3ΓΔΘΛΠΨΩ unc7 λ φ 565 pm Κ ς
11:21 μαρθα P45 AΓΔΛ unc7 pl Κ ς
11:21b ο αδελφος μου ουκ αν P45 P66 C3ΓΔΘΛΠΩ unc8 φ pl Κ ς
11:29   εγειρεται P45 P66 AC2ΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 λ φ pm l vg Κ ς
11:31 λεγοντες P66 AC2ΓΔΘΛΠΨ unc8 pm it vg sa sy-ph Κ ς
11:32 εις P66 AC3ΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 φ pl Κ ς
11:32b απεθανεν μου ο αδελφος P45 AC3XΓΛΠ unc8 λ (φ) pl Κ ς
12:6 ειχεν και P66 AIXΓΔΛΠΨ unc8 pl a b c f go arm Κ ς
12:9 οχλος πολυς P66 P75 AB3IQXΘΨ λ φ 33 pl f g vg bo go sy-ph Κ ς
12:36 εως P66 XΓΔΛΠ3 unc8 λ φ 1241 pm Κ ς
12:36b ο Ιησους P75 אcAXΓΔΛΠ unc8 rell Libere Chr Κ ς
13:26     και εμβαψας P66 AWΓΘΛΠΨ unc8 λ Κ ς
13:26b ισκαριωτη    P66 AWΓΔΛΠ* unc7 λ φ pm vg-c go co arm Or Κ ς
14:5 δυναμεθα την οδον ειδεναι P66 AC2LNQWXΓΔΘΛΠ unc6 λ φ pl it-pc vg Κ ς
19:4 εξηλθεν ουν P66c EGHMSUWYΔΘΛ φ pm Κ ς
19:11 απεκριθη αυτου P66c AXYΔΛΠ unc6 φ pm it-pc vg go co arm sy-p Κ ς
19:35 εστιν αυτου η μαρτ. P66EGKSUΛ 579 pm am ing Caes Κ
20:17   πατερα μου P66 ALOXΓΔΘΛΠ unc6 λ φ pl lat sy-ps sa bo Κ ς

Sturz (2): Byzantine-Papyrus Readings Luke

2011-07-22T00:24:00.000-07:00

Here again are examples from Sturz' List 1, (cont.)

Distinctively Byzantine - Papyrus Alignments (Byz Text-type p. 145 fwd):

Luke:

6:28 καταρωμενους υμιν P75 EHLSUVΔΘΛ pm Just (Or) Κ ς
6:39 δε   P45 [P75] APΓΔΛΠ unc7 pl co go sy-p Κ ς
9:30 μωσης P45 AEGHMPSUVΓΛ λ pm (Κ) ς
10:21 τω πνευματι P45 AEGHMSUVWΓΔΛ φ pl f g bo-pt Cl Bas Cyr Κ ς
10:39 του ιησου P45 P75(-του) AB3C2PWΓΔΘΛΠ unc9 λ φ pl b sy-ptxt Bas Κ ς
11:12 η και εαν P45 AWXΓΔΘΛΠ unc9 pl Κ ς (ΑΘΛ pc αν)
11:12 αιτηση P45 EFGMSUVWXΠ φ pm Κ ς
11:33 το φεγγος P45 ALWΓΔΛΠ unc8 28 33 pm Κ ς
11:50 εκχυνομενον P75 HKMSVXΓΘΛ λ pl Κ ς
12:5   εξουσιαν εχοντα P45 EGHMSUVΓΔΛ pm eth Tert Κ ς
12:21 εαυτω P75 AQXΓΔΘΛΠ λ unc9 pl Κ ς
12:22 ψυχη υμων P45 XΓΔΛΠ unc8 φ pl a e g2 vg-ed sy-c sa bo eth Cl Ath Κ ς
12:23 η ψυχη P45 AEGHKQUVWΓΔΛΠ pl a f ff2 i q g-l vg sy-ptxt Κ ς
12:30 επιζητει P45 AQWΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 λ pl Bas Ath Κ ς
12:31 την βασιλειαν του θεου P45 AD2QWXΓΔΘΛΠ 070 unc8 λ φ pl d it-pl vg sy-c Cl Mcion Κ ς
13:2    οτι τοιαυτα P75 AWXΓΔΘΛΠ 070 unc8 λ (φ) pm it vg Chr Κ ς
13:19 δενδρον μεγα P45 AWXΓΔΘΛΠ unc9 λ φ pl c f q sy-p eth Κ ς
13:28 οψησθε P75 AB2LRWΓΔΛΠ 070 unc8 pl it vg Ir Κ ς [WH]
14:3    ει εξεστιν P45 AWXΔΛΠ unc8 λ φ pl it-pl vg (sa) sy-c Κ ς
14:23 ο οικος μου P45 PWΓΔΛ unc8 λ φ pl lat Bas Κ ς
14:34 εαν δε P75 ARWΓΔΛΠ unc8 pl e ff2 i vg-ed co sy-p eth arm Κ ς
15:21 υοις σου P75 ALPQRWΓΔΘΛΠ unc7 λ φ pl it (vg) go co sy-h arm Aug Κ ς
15:22 την στολην P75 D2EGHK2MRSUVXΓΔΛ pl Ps Chr Dam Κ ς
23:53 εθηκεν αυτο P75 ALPWXΓΔΘΛΠ unc8 pl c Κ ς
24:47 αρξαμενον P75 AC3FHKMUVWΓΔ* ΛΠ λ φ pm (a c e l) (sy-sp) arm Κ ς

Sturz: Byzantine Readings with Early Papyrus Support

2011-07-16T23:12:00.000-07:00

Here are examples from Sturz' List 1, (abbrev.)

Distinctively Byzantine - Papyrus Alignments (Byz Text-type p. 145 fwd):

Matt.

26:22 εκαστος αυτων (P37)P45 AWΓΔ(Θ)ΠΣΦ unc8 λ φ 28 565 700 1241 1582 pl sy-p Eus K ς (We'll just list the Byz. reading)

Mark

5:42 εξεστησαν P45 AWΘΠΣ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl it vg sy sa geo K ς
6:2 εν τη συναγωγη διδασκειν AΝWΠΣΦ unc9 pl λ φ 28 565 700 1071 g1 g2 i q vg go K ς
6:45 απολυση P45 A E2 FHMSUVWΠ 33 pm K ς
6:48 ειδεν P45 EFGHSUΓΠ2 λ φ 565 700 pm sy arm eth K ς
6:50 ειδον (or ιδον itac.) (P45) AKLMVXΓΔΠ pl K ς
7:12 και ουκετι αφιετε P45 AWXΓΠ unc9 579 pl f g2 vg go sy arm K ς
7:30 το δαιμ. εξελ. και την θυγ. βεβλ. AΝWXΠ unc9 φ pl a n sy-p go arm K ς
7:30 επι της κλινης P45 W λ φ 33 565 pl K ς
7:31 και σιδωνος ηλθε P45 AΝWXΓΠ unc9 λ φ pl q sy-s sy-p go arm (sa) K ς
7:32 μογιλαλον P45 ALΝXΓΠ unc9 λ φ pl co sy-s sy-p go (arm) K ς
7:35 ευθεως P45 AEFGHKMNSUVWXΘΠ 0132 λ φ 565 700 pl c f 1 vg sy-s sy-p (sa) go eth arm K ς
7:35 διηνοιχθησαν P45 ANXΓΠ 0132 unc9 φ 579 pm K ς
7:36 αυτος αυτοις P45 EFGHKMNSUV ΓΠ φ pl sy go eth arm K ς
9:6 ησαν γαρ εκφοβοι P45 AKNUWXΓΠΦ unc9 λ φ 700 pl f l g1 vg sy-p co go K ς
9:20 ευθεως το πνευμα P45 AINWXΓΘΠΦ unc9 λ φ 700 pl ς
9:20 εσπαραξεν   P45 AINWXΓΘΠ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl K ς
12:6 αγαπητον αυτου   P45 ANWXΓΠΦ unc9 λ φ 28 pl K ς
12:16 ειπον   P45 NXΓΘΠ unc9 λ φ pl K ς

Translation: NKJV - Pharmakeia as 'Drug-dealing'

2011-07-13T04:10:00.000-07:00

The Greek word pharmakeia has a range of uses in ancient literature:

The New King James Version offers the following footnote at Rev. 9:21:

And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries [fn] or their sexual immorality or their thefts.

footnote: (9:21) NU-Text and M-Text read drugs.

Clearly the translators are aware of the range of meanings for this word and its cognates.

Nazaroo has previously reported that drug-dealing apparently appears in the Greek NT some five times:

-------------------------------------------------
Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?

Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.

(Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15, original Greek)

Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:

Gal 5:20 "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING ( pharmakeia )...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"

John also Speaks out against Drugs:

Rev. 9:21 "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."

Rev 22:15 "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."

Rev 18:23 Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"

Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"

-----------------------------------------------------

Others have also dealt with this subject recently, and come to similar conclusions, at least in the allowance of drug-dealing as included in the meaning of NT text:

Pharmakeia I
Pharmakeia II

Sorcery & Drugs

Drugs and Endtimes Prophecy

Pharmakeia I

Pharmakeia II

Sorcery & Drugs

Drugs and Endtimes Prophecy

Drug Dealing and the Bible

The Bible on Alcohol and Drugs

Christians and Drugs

Four Powerful Drugs in the Bible

The Bible, Drugs and Dosages of Intoxication

Herbalists condemn the Drug Industry

Christians and Drugs

Youtube Video Drugs and the Bible 1

Bible.Org on Drugs and Alcohol

Chase (1897) on Mark 16:9-20

2011-07-11T17:42:00.000-07:00

Here is the appendix to Chase's work on Codex Bezae, in which he discusses Mark's ending (click to enlarge the pages, then backbutton returns here):

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Click to Enlarge pages

Textual Critical Websites: Analysis

2011-06-26T23:12:00.000-07:00


click for enlarging

Well, I was inspired by Nazaroo's use of a Venn-diagram, and the recent discussion of their use on TC-Alt for MS sorting; so I conjured up this self-critical look at Textual-critical blogging. Hope you enjoy it: suggestions are welcome!

mr.scrivener

Griesbach-Scholz GNT comparison

2011-06-23T01:44:00.000-07:00

The following comparison between Griesbach and Scholz is given in the original English Hexapla (GNT + 5 translations):


Click to Enlarge: Backbutton returns here

mr.scrivener

Some Rare St. Augustine from Protestant Researchers

2011-06-22T23:32:00.000-07:00

I just have to repost this great summary of Augustine on Scriptural Authority, posted as a comment (#136) back in May last year on the following post:

Whitaker on the Canon, Part 1

May 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm (Bible)

D. T. King said,

June 2, 2010 at 9:05 am

It is not hard to see how one ends up in either Geneva or Rome depending on his presuppositions. In one, scriptura(and necessarily the gospel, as in the formal principle of the Reformation leads to the material) defines the church, and in the other ecclesia leads to Rome and the church defines the gospel.
Interesting observation, to be sure. When I began my investigation of the ECFs some 15 years ago, I read everything I could beg, buy, or barter. I suppose we all have our interests, church history and patristics are mine. Most of the Augustinian corpus has been translated, and New City Press is in the process of providing new translations of all of his works. But of all the works of Augustine that have been translated, there is one work, De Unitate Ecclesiae that has never been fully translated into English; and although New City Press plans to do so, it has been postponed for some five years now due (I’m told) to the prolonged illness of the translator. May the Lord be pleased to give him the health to finish. But in his controversy with the Donatists, Augustine wrote this work to refute their schism from the Church Catholic. Notice how Augustine does not lodge his argument in an appeal to apostolic succession in this particular work, in fact he bids his adversaries not to look in the direction of human testimonies. Over and over, he argues with the Donatists that the church is to be found in and defined by the Scriptures. Obviously, Augustine did not share the skeptical pessimism of our present day opponents with respect to the testimony of Holy Scripture. Of Augustine’s writings and this one in particular, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger observed: “St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome,—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable, on the Jesuit theory, that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he knows nothing. See Janus, The Pope and the Council, trans. from the German, 2nd ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1869), pp. 88-89.
I suppose, perhaps, that not many of my Reformed brethren have had the opportunity of reading the following list of citations from this particular work of Augustine, collated and organized in this manner, but where translations have been provided, I have arranged them in the following order in which they appear in this single work of Augustine. I think that when one can read them in this way, it gives something of a feel for the flow of this ancient African bishop’s argument. Bear in mind that this is how Augustine argued to call the Donatists back to the unity of the Church. And again, as Döllinger noted, never once does he posit that unity in the papal chair of Rome, or in its succession of bishops. There is an obvious difference in the modus operandi that Augustine employed in this work, and how our Roman disputants proceed with their contentions. Moreover, he does not ground his argument in the teaching authority of the church, but in Holy Scripture itself.
Augustine (354-430): Let us not hear, You [i.e., the Donatists] say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p 164.
Latin text: Sed, ut dicere coeperam, non audiamus, Haec dicis, haec dico; sed audiamus, Haec dicit Dominus. Sunt certe Libri dominici, quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus, utrique cedimus utrique servimus: ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:394.
Augustine (354-430): Therefore let those testimonies which we mutually bring against each other, from any other quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 164.
Latin text: Auferantur ergo illa de medio, quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis canonicis Libris, sed aliunde recitamus. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:395.
Augustine (354-430): I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by human testimonies, but by divine oracles. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, pp. 164-165.
Latin text: Quia nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §6, PL 43:395.
Augustine (354-430): Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church. For trans., See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, pp. 109-110.
Latin text: Quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.
Augustine (354-430): We adhere to this Church; against those divine declarations we admit no human cavils. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Nos hanc Ecclesiam tenemus, contra istas divinas voces nullas humanas criminationes admittimus. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410.
Augustine (354-430): I have the most manifest voice of my pastor commending to me, and without any hesitation setting forth the church, I will impute it to myself, if I shall wish to be seduced by the words of men and to wander from his flock, which is the church itself, since he specially admonished me saying, “My sheep hear my voice and follow me”; listen to his voice clear and open and heard; who does not follow, how will he dare to call himself his sheep? Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992),Vol. 3, pp. 91-92 and William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Habeo manifestissimam vocem pastoris mei, commendantis mihi et sine ullis ambagibus exprimentis Ecclesiam: mihi imputabo si ab ejus grege, quod est ipsa Ecclesia, per verba hominum seduci atque aberrare voluero; cum me praesertim admonuerit dicens, Quae sunt oves meae, vocem meam audiunt et sequuntur me. Ecce vox ejus clara et aperta: hac audita qui eum non sequitur, quomodo se ovem ejus dicere audebit? Nemo mihi dicat: O quid dixit Donatus, o quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum! Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410-411.
Augustine (354-430): All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum praedicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quae apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XVIII, §47, PL 43:427-428.
Augustine (354-430): We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men. For trans., see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 165.
Latin text: Ecclesia, quam sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.
Augustine (354-430): For we do not say that we ought to be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, or because that Church to which we belong, was commended to us by Optatus, Ambrose, or other innumerable Bishops of our communion; or because miracles are everywhere wrought in it. . . . These things are indeed to be approved, because they are done in the Catholic Church, but it is not thence proved to be the Catholic Church, because such things are done in it. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He rose from the dead, and offered His body to be touched as well as seen by His disciples, lest there should be any fallacy in it, thought it proper to convince them, rather by the testimony of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, showing how all things were fulfilled which had been foretold; and so He commanded His Church, saying, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His Name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. This He testified was written in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms; this we hold, as commended from His mouth. These are the documents, these the foundations, these the strong grounds of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:11), of some believers, that they daily searched the Scriptures if these things were so. What Scriptures? but the canonical books of the Law and the Prophets; to which are added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John, Search, then, all these, and bring forth something manifest, by which you may prove the Church to have remained only in Africa, or come out of Africa in order that it might be fulfilled which the Lord said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” For translation, see Charles Hastings Collette, Saint Augustine: A Sketch of His Life and Writings, A.D. 387-430 (London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1883), pp. 48-49.
Latin text: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quae frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, . . . Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis, et discipulorum oculis videndum, manibusque tangendum corpus suum offerret, ne quid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur, magis eos testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit, ostendens ea de se impleta, quae fuerant tanto ante praedicta. Sic et Ecclesiam suam commendavit dicens: Praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam, et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Jerusalem. Hoc in Lege, et Prophetis, et Psalmis esse scriptum ipse testatus est: hoc ejus ore commendatum tenemus. Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. Scrutamini haec omnia, et eruite aliquid manifestum, quo demonstretis Ecclesiam vel in sola Africa remansisse, vel ex Africa futurum esse ut impleatur quod Dominus dicit: Praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe in testimonium omnibus gentibus; et tunc veniet finis (Matth. XXIV, 14). De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §47-51, PL 43:430.

Anti-Semitism in Tacitus: Part I

2011-06-20T03:34:00.000-07:00

We have highlighted in RED the sections in Tacitus below) in which Roman ignorant bigotry and anti-Semitism stand out prominently. Many statements appear based on gleanings from Josephus, but tinted heavily by Tacitus' deep prejudice against the Jewish nation. Tacitus contradicts himself several times, in his haste to exaggerate and attack the Jewish people; we have indicated these parts with [!] in a neutral color.

Tacitus - Histories

Book V

1 At the beginning of this same year (1) Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judea, (2) and who had already won distinction as a soldier while both were still private citizens, began to enjoy greater power and reputation, for provinces and armies also vied with one another in enthusiasm for him. Moreover, in his own conduct, wishing to be thought greater than his fortune, he always showed himself dignified and energetic in the field; by his affable address he called forth devotion, and he often mingled with the common soldiers both at work or on the march without impairing his position as general.

He found awaiting him in Judea three legions, Vespasian's old troops, the Fifth, the Tenth, and the Fifteenth. He reinforced these with the Twelfth from Syria and with some soldiers from the Twenty-second and the Third which he brought from Alexandria; these troops were accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied infantry, eight squadrons of cavalry, as well as by the princes Agrippa and Sohaemus, the auxiliaries sent by King Antiochus, (3) and by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with all that hatred that is common among neighbours; there were besides many Romans who had been prompted to leave the capital and Italy by the hope that each entertained of securing the prince's favour while he was yet free from engagements.

With these forces Titus entered the enemy's land: his troops advanced in strict order, he reconnoitred at every step and was always ready for battle; not far from Jerusalem he pitched camp.

2 However, as I am about to describe the last days of a famous city, it seems proper for me to give some account of its origin. (4)

It is said that the Jews were originally exiles from the island of Crete who settled in the farthest parts of Libya at the time when Saturn had been deposed and expelled by Jove. An argument in favour of this is derived from the name: there is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida, and hence the inhabitants were called the Idaei, which was later lengthened into the barbarous form Iudaei.

Some hold that in the reign of Isis the superfluous population of Egypt, under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Iuda, discharged itself on the neighbouring lands:

Many others think that they were an Egyptian stock, which in the reign of Cepheus was forced to migrate by fear and hatred.

Still others report that they were Assyrian refugees, a landless people, who first got control of a part of Egypt, then later they had their own cities and lived in the Hebrew territory and the nearer parts of Syria.

Still others say that the Jews are of illustrious origin, being the Solymi, a people celebrated in Homer's poems, (5) who founded a city and gave it the name Hierosolyma, formed from their own.

3 Most authors agree that once during a plague in Egypt which caused bodily disfigurement, King Bocchoris (6) approached the oracle of Ammon (7) and asked for a remedy, whereupon he was told to purge his kingdom and to transport this race into other lands, since it was hateful to the gods. So the Hebrews were searched out and gathered together.

Then, being abandoned in the desert, while all others lay idle and weeping, one only of the exiles, Moses by name, warned them not to hope for help from gods or men, for they were deserted by both, but to trust to themselves, regarding as a guide sent from heaven the one whose assistance should first give them escape from their present distress. They agreed, and then set out on their journey in utter ignorance, but trusting to chance.

Nothing caused them so much distress as scarcity of water, and in fact they had already fallen exhausted over the plain nigh unto death, when a herd of wild asses moved from their pasturage to a rock that was shaded by a grove of trees. Moses followed them, and, conjecturing the truth from the grassy ground, discovered abundant streams of water. This relieved them, and they then marched six days continuously, and on the seventh they seized a country, expelling the former inhabitants; there they founded a city and dedicated a temple. (8)

4 To establish his control over this people for all time, Moses introduced new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor. They dedicated, in a shrine, a statue of that creature whose guidance enabled them to put an end to their wandering and thirst, (9) sacrificing a ram, apparently in derision of Ammon. (10) They likewise offer the ox, because the Egyptians worship Apis.

They abstain from pork, in recollection of a plague, for the scab to which this animal is subject once afflicted them. By frequent fasts even now they bear witness to the long hunger with which they were once distressed, and the unleavened Jewish bread is still employed in memory of the haste with which they seized the grain. (11)

They say that they first chose to rest on the seventh day because that day ended their toils; but after a time they were led by the charms of indolence to give over the seventh year as well to inactivity. (12)

Others say that this is done in honour of Saturn, (13) whether it be that the primitive elements of their religion were given by the Idaeans, who, according to tradition, were expelled with Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or is due to the fact that, of the seven planets that rule the fortunes of mankind, Saturn moves in the highest orbit and has the greatest potency; and that many of the heavenly bodies traverse their paths and courses in multiples of seven. (14)

5 Whatever their origin, these rites are maintained by reason of their antiquity: the other customs of the Jews are base and abominable, and owe their persistence to their depravity.

For the worst rascals among other peoples, (15) renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute and contributions to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews:

Also, the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity.

They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart, and although as a race, they are prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing is unlawful.

They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Converts to their ways follow the same practices, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account.

However, they take care to increase their numbers; for they regard it as a crime to kill any late-born child, (16) and they believe that the souls of those who are killed in battle or by the executioner are immortal: hence comes their passion for begetting children, and their scorn of death.

They bury the body rather than burn it, thus following the Egyptian custom; they likewise bestow the same care on the dead, and hold the same belief about the world below.

But their ideas of heavenly things are quite the opposite. The Egyptians worship many animals and monstrous images; the Jews conceive of one god only, and that with the mind alone: they regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representations of gods in man's image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end.

Therefore they set up no statues in their cities, still less in their temples; [!?] this flattery is not paid their own kings, nor this honour given to the Caesars.

But since their priests used to chant to the accompaniment of pipes and cymbals and to wear garlands of ivy, and because a golden vine was found in their temple, some have thought that they were devotees of Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, in spite of the incongruity of their customs. For Liber established festive rites of a joyous nature, while the ways of the Jews are preposterous and mean.

6 Their land is bounded by Arabia on the east, Egypt lies on the south, on the west are Phoenicia and the sea, and toward the north the people enjoy a wide prospect over Syria. (17) The inhabitants are healthy and hardy. Rains are rare; the soil is fertile; its products are like ours, save that the balsam and the palm also grow there. The palm is a tall and handsome tree; the balsam (18) a mere shrub: if a branch, when swollen with sap, is pierced with steel, the veins shrivel up; so a piece of stone or a potsherd is used to open them; the juice is employed by physicians.

Of the mountains, Lebanon rises to the greatest height, and is in fact a marvel, for in the midst of the excessive heat its summit is shaded by trees and covered with snow; it likewise is the source and supply of the river Jordan. (19) This river does not empty into the sea, but after flowing with volume undiminished through two lakes is lost in the third. (20)

The last is a lake of great size [the Dead Sea]: it is like the sea, but its water has a nauseous taste, and its offensive odour is injurious to those who live near it. Its waters are not moved by the wind, and neither fish nor water-fowl can live there. Its lifeless waves bear up whatever is thrown upon them as on a solid surface; all swimmers, whether skilled or not, are buoyed up by them.

At a certain season of the year the sea throws up bitumen [tar, oil], and experience has taught the natives how to collect this, as she teaches all arts. Bitumen is by nature a dark fluid which coagulates when sprinkled with vinegar, and swims on the surface. Those whose business it is, catch hold of it with their hands and haul it on shipboard: then with no artificial aid the bitumen flows in and loads the ship until the stream is cut off. Yet you cannot use bronze or iron to cut the bituminous stream; it shrinks from blood or from a cloth stained with a woman's menses. Such is the story told by ancient writers, but those who are acquainted with the country aver that the floating masses of bitumen are driven by the winds or drawn by hand to shore, where later, after they have been dried by vapours from the earth or by the heat of the sun, they are split like timber or stone with axes and wedges.

7 Not far from this lake is a plain which, according to report, was once fertile and the site of great cities, but which was later devastated by lightning; and it is said that traces of this disaster still exist there, and that the very ground looks burnt and has lost its fertility. In fact, all the plants there, whether wild or cultivated, turn black, become sterile, and seem to wither into dust, either in leaf or in flower or after they have reached their usual mature form. Now for my part, although I should grant that famous cities were once destroyed by fire from heaven, I still think that it is the exhalations from the lake that infect the ground and poison the atmosphere about this district, and that this is the reason that crops and fruits decay, since both soil and climate are deleterious. (21)

The river Belus also empties into the Jewish Sea; around its mouth a kind of sand is gathered, which when mixed with soda is fused into glass. The beach is of moderate size, but it furnishes an inexhaustible supply. (22)

8 A great part of Judea is covered with scattered villages, but there are some towns also; Jerusalem is the capital of the Jews. In it was a temple possessing enormous riches. (23) The first line of fortifications protected the city, the next the palace, and the innermost wall the temple. (24) Only a Jew might approach its doors, and all save the priests were forbidden to cross the threshold.

When the East was under the dominion of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, the Jews were regarded as the meanest of their subjects: but after the Macedonians gained supremacy, (25) the Greek King Antiochus endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization; the war with the Parthians, however, prevented his improving this basest of peoples; for it was exactly at that time that Arsaces had revolted. (26)

Later on, since the power of Macedon had waned, the Parthians were not yet come to their strength, and the Romans were far away, the Jews selected their own kings: (27) These in turn were expelled by the fickle mob; but recovering their throne by force of arms, (28) they banished citizens, destroyed towns, killed brothers, wives, and parents, and dared commit every other kind of royal crime without hesitation; but they fostered the national superstition, for they had assumed the priesthood to support their civil authority.

9 The first Roman to subdue the Jews and set foot in their temple by right of conquest was Pompey; (29) thereafter it was a matter of common knowledge that there were no representations of the gods within, and that the place was empty and the secret shrine contained nothing. The walls of Jerusalem were razed, but the temple was left standing.

Later, in the time of our civil wars, when these eastern provinces had fallen into the hands of Mark Antony, the Parthian prince, Pacorus, seized Judea, but he was slain by Publius Ventidius, and the Parthians were thrown back across the Euphrates: (30) the Jews were subdued by Gaius Sosius. (31) Antony gave the throne to Herod, and Augustus, after his victory, increased his power. After Herod's death, a certain Simon (32) assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar's decision. He, however, was put to death by Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria; the Jews were repressed; and the kingdom was divided into three parts and given to Herod's sons. (33)

Under Tiberius all was quiet. Then, when Caligula ordered the Jews to set up his statue in their temple, they chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising.

The princes now being dead or reduced to insignificance, Claudius made Judea a province and entrusted it to Roman knights or to freedmen; one of the latter, Antonius Felix, practised every kind of cruelty and lust, wielding the power of king with all the instincts of a slave; (34) he had married Drusilla, the grand-daughter of Cleopatra and Antony, and so was Antony's grandson-in‑law, while Claudius was Antony's grandson.

10 Still the Jews' patience lasted until Gessius Florus became procurator: (35) in his time war began. When Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, tried to stop it, he suffered varied fortunes and met defeat more often than he gained victory.

On his death, whether in the course of nature or from vexation, Nero sent out Vespasian, who, aided by his good fortune and reputation as well as by his excellent subordinates, within two summers occupied with his victorious army the whole of the level country and all the cities except Jerusalem.

The next year was taken up with [Roman] civil war, and thus was passed in inactivity so far as the Jews were concerned. When peace had been secured throughout Italy, foreign troubles began again; and the fact that the Jews alone had failed to surrender increased our resentment; at the same time, having regard to all the possibilities and hazards of a new reign, it seemed expedient for Titus to remain with the army.

11 Therefore, as I have said above,36 Titus pitched his camp before the walls of Jerusalem and displayed his legions in battle array: the Jews formed their line close beneath their walls, being thus ready to advance if successful, and having a refuge at hand in case they were driven back. Some horse and light-armed foot were sent against them, but fought indecisively; later the enemy retired, and during the following days they engaged in many skirmishes before their gates until at last their continual defeats drove them within their walls.

The Romans now turned to preparations for an assault; for the soldiers thought it beneath their dignity to wait for the enemy to be starved out, and so they began to clamour for danger, part being prompted by bravery, but many were moved by their savage natures and their desire for booty.

Titus himself had before his eyes a vision of Rome, its wealth and its pleasures, and he felt that if Jerusalem did not fall at once, his enjoyment of them would be delayed. But the city stands on an eminence, and the Jews had defended it with works and fortifications sufficient to protect even level ground; for the two hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been skillfully built, projecting out or bending in so as to put the flanks of an assailing body under fire. (37) The rocks terminated in sheer cliffs, and towers rose to a height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the fortifications, and in the valleys they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful sight, and appeared of equal height when viewed from a distance. (38) An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous height stands Antony's Tower, so named by Herod in honour of Mark Antony. (39)

12 The temple was built like a citadel, with walls of its own, which were constructed with more care and effort than any of the rest; the very colonnades about the temple made a splendid defence. Within the enclosure is an ever-flowing spring; (40) in the hills are subterraneous excavations, with pools and cisterns for holding rain-water. The founders of the city had foreseen that there would be many wars because the ways of their people differed so from those of the neighbours: therefore they had built at every point as if they expected a long siege; and after the city had been stormed by Pompey, their fears and experience taught them much.

Moreover, profiting by the greed displayed during the reign of Claudius, they had bought the privilege of fortifying the city, and in time of peace had built walls as if for war. The population at this time had been increased by streams of rabble that flowed in from the other captured cities, (41) for the most desperate rebels had taken refuge here, and consequently sedition was the more rife.

There were three generals, three armies: the outermost and largest circuit of the walls was held by Simon, the middle of the city by John, and the temple was guarded by Eleazar. (42) John and Simon were strong in numbers and equipment, Eleazar had the advantage of position: between these three there was constant fighting, treachery, and arson, and a great store of grain was consumed. Then John got possession of the temple by sending a party, under pretence of offering sacrifice, to slay Eleazar and his troops. So the citizens were divided into two factions until, at the approach of the Romans, foreign war produced concord.

13 Prodigies [misfortunes, omens?] had indeed occurred, but to avert them either by sacrifices or by vows is held unlawful by a people which, though prone to superstition, is opposed to all propitiatory rites. (43)

Contending hosts were seen meeting in the skies, arms flashed, and suddenly the temple was illumined with fire from the clouds. Of a sudden the doors of the shrine opened and a superhuman voice cried: "The gods are departing": at the same moment the mighty stir of their going was heard. (44) Few interpreted these omens as fearful; [!] the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world. (45) This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, [so goes Josephus' story] but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity.

We have heard that the total number of the besieged of every age and both sexes was six hundred thousand; there were arms for all who could use them, and the number ready to fight was larger than could have been anticipated from the total population. Both men and women showed the same determination; and if they were to be forced to change their home, they feared life more than death.

Such was the city and people against which Titus Caesar now proceeded; since the nature of the ground did not allow him to assault or employ any sudden operations, he decided to use earthworks and mantlets; the legions were assigned to their several tasks, and there was a respite of fighting until they made ready every device for storming a town that the ancients had ever employed or modern ingenuity invented.

Loeb Editor's Notes:

1 70 A.D.

❦

2 Cf. II.4; IV.51.

❦

3 Agrippa was prince of Trachonitis and Galilee; Sohaemus, king of Sophene and prince of Emesa in Syria; while Antiochus was king of Commagene and of a part of Cilicia. Cf. II.81.

❦

4 Tacitus in this brief and somewhat confused account of the Jews apparently followed the Alexandrian historians, Chaeremon and Lysimachus.

❦

5 Il. VI.184; Od. V.282.

❦

6 King Bocchoris reigned in the eighth century B.C., whereas the exodus seems to have taken place about five centuries earlier. But the account of the exodus as given in the Old Testament requires much revision in the light of modern historical scholarship. Vid. Cambridge Ancient History, II, 352 ff.

❦

7 The famous Egyptian oracle in the oasis Siwah, in the Libyan desert.

❦

8 Cf. the story in Genesis with this fantastic account, which Tacitus took chiefly from Lysimachus.

❦

9 That is, an ass. The same charge of worshipping an ass was frequently made against the Christians later.

❦

10 The Egyptian god was represented in art with a ram's horns.

❦

11 Cf. Exod. xii.15‑20, 34‑39.

❦

12 Cf. Deut. v.15; Levit. xxv.4.

❦

13 The seventh day being Saturn's day.

❦

14 Cf. Dio Cass. XXXVII.18 f.

❦

15 The proselytes, whose contributions were important. The tribute amounted to two drachmae a head each year, according to Josephus, Bell. Iud. VII.218 (Niese).

❦

16 The word here used, "agnatus," means a child born after the father had made his will, or one that was not desired. Cf. Germ. 19.

❦

17 Looking from Lebanon, over Coele-Syria.

❦

18 Famed for its medicinal qualities and fragrance. Strabo XVI 763; Pliny XII.111.

❦

19 The source of the Jordan is on Mt. Hermon, which Tacitus apparently identifies with Lebanon.

❦

20 The marshy Lake Merom, then Gennesareth, and finally the Dead Sea.

❦

21 With this description compare that of Josephus, Bell. Jud. IV.8.4; Strabo XVI 763 f.; and Pliny, N.H. V.71 f., VII.65.

❦

22 Cf. Pliny, NH XXXVI.190 ff. The river Belus (Naaman), which rises in the highlands of Galilee and empties in the Mediterranean near St. Jean d'Acre, really belongs to Phoenicia.

❦

23 It will be observed that Tacitus is writing after the destruction of the temple.

❦

24 Tacitus is somewhat inexact here, for the walls were not concentric.

❦

25 The Seleucid dynasty is meant.

❦

26 It was under Antiochus II (260‑245 B.C.) that Arsaces revolted; but Tacitus may be confusing the revolt of Arsaces with the Maccabaean war of 167‑164 B.C.

❦

27 The Hasmonean line.

❦

28 This may refer to the war between King Alexander and the Pharisees that began in 92 B.C. and lasted for six years; or to the struggle for the throne that followed on the death of Alexander's widow, Salome, in 70 B.C.

❦

29 In 63 B.C.

❦

30 Pacorus advanced on Judea in 40 B.C., but two years later he was killed.

❦

31 Both Ventidius and Sosius were lieutenants of Antony. Aided by Sosius, Herod defeated the last of the Maccabees in 37 B.C., and thenceforth the throne of Judea was held by princes friendly to Rome.

❦

32 One of Herod's former slaves.

❦

33 Archilaus, as Ethnarch, ruled Judea, southern Idumea and northern Samaria; Herod Antipas, as Tetrarch, had Galilee and Perea; while Philip, as Tetrarch, received the district east of the Jordan.

❦

34 Antonius Felix, the brother of Claudius's notorious favourite Pallas, was procurator of Judea 52‑60 according to Josephus, Ant. XX.7.1, but seems to have governed the southern half before 52. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. XII.54.

❦

35 Procurator 64‑66 A.D.

❦

36 In chap. i.

❦

37 The two hills meant are apparently Acra and Bezetha, which were included within Herod's wall.

❦

38 The outer circuit of fortifications had 90 towers; there were in all 164, according to Josephus, Bell. Iud. V.4.3.

❦

39 The palace stood on Zion, the temple on Moriah. At the north-west corner of the temple enclosure Herod built Antony's Tower.

❦

40 It is possible, but not probable, that Tacitus means the Pool of Siloam; for the context seems to show that he is thinking of the temple.

❦

41 i.e. taken by Vespasian and Titus in 67 and 68 A.D.

❦

42 Simon had carried on guerilla warfare east of the Jordan, but had been called in by the Idumean party in 68 A.D., when he was greeted as a saviour by the people; John of Gischala headed the Galilean zealots; and Eleazar led the patriotic war party.

❦

43 Cf. Jerem. x.2: Thus saith the Lord, learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the heathen are dismayed at them.

The word religiones probably refers to the formal ceremonies by which the Romans warded off (procurare) the evil effect of prodigies; but it may have a wider connotation here.

❦

44 Cf. Verg. Aen. II.351 f.; excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis / di quibus imperium hoc steterat; and the remarks by Macrob., Sat. III.9 on these verses. Josephus, Bell. Iud. VI.299 (Niese) relates that at Pentecost the priests heard repeatedly a cry from the innermost part of the temple: μεταβαίνομεν ἐντεῦθεν.

❦

45 Cf. Dan. ii.44; Suet. Vesp. 4.

Wordsworth - Misc. (1879, V2) Biblical Inspiration

2011-06-16T23:47:00.000-07:00

We here post the Table of Contents of Vol 2 of C. Wordsworth's Miscellanies (1879), in which he presents a long and structured statement of Biblical Inspiration. The TC of the volume provides a handy outline of his argument:

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

I. ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.

Ancient Fresco-painting, from the Roman Catacombs,
a symbolical representation of the doctrine concerning
the Inspiration of the Bible; and of the divine method
for diffusing and interpreting it .......................................1, 2

In considering this question we must begin
with proving the God head of Jesus Christ ..................... 2

To do this it is to be shown, first,
that the Gospels are true histories;
Next since the Gospels are true histories
it follows that Christ is God..............................................2,3

Next let us learn to behold Christ holding
in His hands the Old Testament,
And as avouching its Truth and Inspiration .................... 3
Evidence of this testimony of Christ to the
Old Testament Christ's guarantee to us ..........................3, 4

Of the Truth and Inspiration of the New Testament.........4, 5

What are the grounds of our reverence for the testimony of the
Church Universal to the Truth and Inspiration of the Bible.

What that testimony amounts to.
Summary of the argument . . . . . . . .5

Corroborative evidence
1. From God's providential care for the Bible ;
       Antiochus Epiphanes ; Diocletian ..............................6
       His care for the Bible in England ...............................8
2. From the fulfilment of the Prophecies in the Bible ......... 9
3. From the Continuity and Symmetry of the Bible ............10
4. From the class of persons employed in writing it ...........11
5. From the moral effects produced by the Bible ..............12

Moral uses of difficulties in the Bible ................................15
Conclusion ..........................................................................16

II.   ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE

Need of this inquiry ....................................................17, 18
Historical reference to the methods applied (especially in Germany)
to the Interpretation of the Bible ..................................18

The Dogmatists and Confessionists ..................................18
Succeeded by the Pietists (Spener and others) ...............19
The Pietists, followed by the Eationalists ......................20
Theory of Accommodation ..............................................21

The relation of Kant's Philosophy to the Bible ...............22
Practical Reason, Moral sense, inner Consciousness,
proposed as Interpreters of the Bible (Semler) ...............22, 24

Rationalism superseded by Spiritualism (Strauss)
leading to Pantheism .......................................................25,26

History of Biblical Interpretation in Germany ........................27
Its theories derived from England
(Tindal, Woolston, Morgan, Toland) .......................................28

Practical inferences from this review (Bemet, Neander) . . 31
Resemblance of errors, old and new ..................................... 33
Almost every Heresy involves some truth ..............................33

What is the office of the Church as
the Guardian and Keeper of Scripture..................................33

What are the proper means for the Interpretation of the Bible . . 35

Conscience, what its office is (Sanderson) .........................35
Human Reason when used reasonably ........................35
Limits of its use ...............................................................36
Reason leads on to Faith .............................................37
Faith and Science (Hooker) .........................................38, 39

Nature and the Bible, two Books of God (Lord Bacon) . . .39

Use of Biblical Criticism ..............................................40

...

Differences between a priori Infallibility
and a posteriori Inerrancy ...........................................90, 91

Why we reject the peculiar dogmas of Rome....................91

The Roman Church is not the Catholic Church ;
and the Romish Faith is not the Catholic Faith ..............92, 93

Our Catholic safeguards against Rome ........................... 91 93

Analogy between the divine plan for assuring us of the Inspiration
of Scripture, and for guiding us in its Interpretation ............9
Recapitulation ......................................................................100

ON THE REVISION OF THE Authorized Version   ..........103
Cautions and Suggestions with respect to it ................... 104

17th-18th century textual critics and commentators

2011-06-16T07:24:00.000-07:00

Here's a quick list for further exploration:

BIOGRAPHY:

John Rogers Pitman (1782-1861), English Anglican theologian, writer, editor, preacher, educator, wit, best known for A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha.

Simon Patrick (1626-1707), English Anglican theologian, preacher, poet, writer, bishop of Chichester and Ely, works include the controversial, A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Nonconformist and its parts.

William Lowth (1660-1732) English Anglican theologian, writer, biblical scholar, rector of Buriton, Hampshire, father of Robert Lowth, works include various biblical commentaries, treatise, discourses and sermons.

Richard Arnald (1700-1756), English Anglican theologian, prebendary, works include The Parable of the Cedar and Thistle and commentary on the Apocryphal books published in continuation of Patrick and Lowth.

Moses Lowman (1680-1752), English dissenting clergyman, theologian, works include An Argument to Prove the Unity and Perfections of God A Priori, Paraphrase and Notes on the Revelation, and other commentaries.

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), English Anglican theologian, writer and biographer, Arminian minister with Arian and Unitarian tendencies, anti-Calvinistic, wrote commentaries, systematized postmillennialism.

John Mill (1645-1707), English Anglican theologian, biblical scholar and textual critic, various readings numbering about thirty thousand, were attacked by Whitby in his Examen as destroying the validity of the text.

It is interesting (perhaps ironic) that Whitby (Arian and potential Unitarian) was a vocal objector to John Mill (conservative?) in regard to examining, collating and publishing manuscript variants. Later, it would be the Unitarians that jumped on the bandwagon for extensive (over-)editing of the NT text, while the Trinitarians balked at the wild and irreverent handling of Holy Scripture.

mr.scrivener

Wordsworth on Islam and Revelation (Part 1)

2011-06-10T19:13:00.000-07:00

The following is extracted from Christopher Wordsworth's Miscellanies, Vol 3 (1879):

THE DECLINE OF MOHAMMEDANISM

A SIGNAL FOR THE GREATER SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL,
WHICH WILL BE TO SOME A WOE.

"THE decline of the Mohammedan Power (which was the subject of the foregoing paper), will, it is probable, be coincident in time with a great extension of Christianity, and will be conducive to it.

Recent events in Eastern Europe and Asia, the acquisition of the island of Cyprus by England, opening the East to Christian Missions, the military successes of her forces in North-Western India, against a Mohammedan power all these seem to point in the same direction. It is remarkable that the passing away of Mohammedanism is connected in the prophecies of the Apocalypse (in the same chapter, the ninth), with the spread of the Gospel, which is there represented as following it. The former of these subjects occupies the first twelve verses; the latter is described in the remainder of that chapter.Both these topics are now deservedly arresting public attention, and it may be profitable to examine those prophecies consecutively in reference to them. Having considered the former prophecy in the foregoing pages, I will now proceed to the examination of the latter. Rev. ix. 13 15,

"And the sixth Angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth Angel which had the Trumpet, Loose the Four Angels which are bound (have been bound) in the great river Euphrates. And the Four Angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour (the hour) and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. "

In this Book, the Book of Revelation, Seven Angels have been introduced in succession, each sounding a Trumpet. These Seven Trumpets announce successive divine judgments; and they end with the seventh or Last Trumpet, which will awaken the dead from their graves, and will summon the world to the Judgment-Seat of Christ. The last three of these seven trumpets are called in this book Woe-Trumpets, because they proclaim three judicial Woes, with which God will visit those who do not believe and obey the Gospel.In the former part of this ninth chapter, the fifth Angel sounds the fifth Trumpet; which is the first of these three Woe Trumpets.

The Woe announced by that Trumpet (as has been shown in the previous paper) was Mohammedanism. After describing the ravages perpetrated by it, the prophecy foretells that in God's time it will pass away. Then the sixth Angel is introduced sounding the sixth Trumpet. This is the subject before us.

"The sixth Angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth Angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four Angels which have been bound in (or at) the great river Euphrates."

The voice proceeds from the four horns of the golden altar, the altar of incense (the type of prayer), which is before God. Therefore this is a divine voice, and is an answer to prayer .This has been observed by ancient Expositors. 1 And this preamble is tantamount to a declaration that what is here alone in obedience to this Voice from the holy altar is done by the command of God and cannot be an evil act.The Divine Voice says to the sixth Angel, "Loose the four Angels which have been bound at the great river Euphrates."

What are these Angels? The word Angel means messenger, and Evangelium or Gospel means a good message, a message of God; and wherever the word Angel is introduced in Scripture, absolutely, as here, without any epithet, it signifies a good Angel, an Angel of God. The voice from the golden altar is a divine voice, it speaks to an Angel who is a divine messenger of God, and commands him to loose the four Angels who are also messengers of God. Therefore the act here done is an act of God, working by His own agents. This was the opinion of ancient authors, mentioned by one of the most learned Greek Expositors, Andreas, who wrote in the sixth or seventh century.

Observe also these holy Angels or Messengers who are loosed are four. In the Apocalypse the number four symbolizes Universality of space, and is applied to the four Gospels (Evangelia), which are called the four living creatures in the fourth chapter, and represent the living power of Evangelical preaching to the four quarters of the Globe.

In the seventh chapter we see in like manner four Angels ( vii. 1,2), and these are clearly Angels of God. The prophecy therefore before us foretells that the decline of the Mohammedan power will be followed by the loosing of four heavenly Messengers ; in other words that it will be a signal for a diffusion of the Gospel throughout the world. This is also revealed in another passage of the Book of Revelation which speaks of the signs of the latter days, and illustrates the present prophecy. Says St. John (Rev. xiv. 6),

"I saw an Angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the Everlasting Gospel (Evangelium) to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, kindred,tongue, and people, saying, Fear God, for the hour of His judgment is come ;"

- an expression, be it observed, which explains the words in the present prophecy, viz. "that the four angels have been prepared for the hour " (such is the true translation), "and for the day" that is for the Day of Judgment. As our Lord says "The word which I have spoken unto you, that shall judge you at the last day" (John xii. 48).

In the prophecy before us the Four Angels are described as having been bound at the great river Euphrates. What does this mean? Many modern Expositors, deviating from the ancient interpretation, and marring the analogy of language in this wonderful book (which is composed with perfect accuracy and exquisite precision) imagine that the word Euphrates is here used literally) and signifies the Eastern river bearing that name. And yet which is strange the same Expositors rightly say that the word Babylon (whose river the Euphrates was), which is used six times in this book, is never used in a literal sense. If the word Euphrates is to be understood in this book literally, and signifies the Eastern river, then the word Babylon, which was on the river Euphrates, is also to be understood literally, and means the Eastern, Assyrian, city.

But this is impossible ; and these Expositors own it to be out of the question. And they truly say that the word Babylon in the Apocalypse is to be understood spiritually, and means the City and Church of Rome; as we have already seen to be the case. But if the word Babylon is to be understood spiritually (as is certain), then the word Euphrates, which was the river of Babylon, is no less surely to be understood spiritually also. And further, on principles of analogy, the word Euphrates here represents something which bears the same relation to the spiritual Babylon (i. e. to the Church of Rome) as the literal river Euphrates bore to the literal Babylon. The literal Euphrates was the cause of the strength and the channel of the commerce and wealth of the literal Babylon.

No ancient Expositors (such as Andreas, Arethas, (Ecumenius among the Greeks, or such as Tychonius, Bede, Haymo, Ainbrosius Ansbertus among the Latins) interpret Euphrates literally. They suppose it to mean the power of the spiritual Babylon. And what, let us ask, has been the cause of power andwealth to the spiritual Babylon? It is its Papal Supremacy. That Supremacy has been flowing onward in a strong, deep, and wide flood for many centuries, and has been the means of the wealth and aggrandisement of the Spiritual Babylon.

But what (it may be asked) is the meaning of the FourAngels having been bound at this river of the Papal Euphrates, and being now loosed ? The answer is easy. For many centuries the Gospel has been bound as a captive at Home. As Israel of old was bound as a captive at the literal Euphrates, the waters of Babylon, and hung up its harp on the willows there, so the Christian Church, with the Scriptures in her hands, has been bound as a captive on the banks of the Papal Babylon. Do you ask a proof of this ? Take one or two out of many. Although Rome calls herself the Holy City, the Centre of Unity, "the Mother and Mistress of all Churches," and although it is the special duty of a Church to diffuse God's Word, yet not a single copy of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament has ever been printed in the city of Rome ; and not a single copy of the Greek original of the New Testament was printed in the city of Rome for four centuries and more after the invention of Printing.

Both Testaments were kept bound in prison at the Euphrates of the Papal Babylon. It is doubtful whether a single copy of any Translation of the Holy Scriptures into any modern language has ever issued from the Papal Press in the City of Rome. By the fourth rule of the Roman "Index Expurgatorius," the liberty to read the Bible is flatly denied to all except under very strict conditions which almost amount to a prohibition. And the Papal Bull Unigenitus (A.D. 1713) condemned the proposition "that the Holy Scriptures were written for all, and ought to be read by all." The word Euphrates has the same spiritual meaning in another passage of the Apocalypse. Rev. xvi. 12. Thus the four Angels have been bound as prisoners at the great river, the Papal Euphrates. Thus also Papal Rome has dealt worse with God's Word than Pagan Rome did. Though Pagan Rome bound the Apostles, it placed no restrictions on the circulation of their Epistles or Gospels, so that St. Paul writing from Rome itself was able to say "the Word of God has not been bound" (2 Tim. ii. 9). By the good Providence of God a greater freedom is now about to be given to the circulation of the Scriptures, by the passing away of the Mohammedan Power in the East. For, let us remember that wherever the Moslem rule is dominant no Church of Christ is permitted to be built. And by a remarkable coincidence a similar emancipation has by God's mercy been effected for His Word in the West, especially at Rome. Since the taking of Rome by the forces of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, on Sept. 20, 1870, and the weakening of the temporal power of Rome, Bibles in the vernacular tongue may now be freely circulated in that country. Truly we may say that the four Angels, which for many centuries had been bound as captives at the river Euphrates, have now been loosed. Here, however, it may be said, Be it so, but is not the free circulation of God's Word an inestimable blessing? How is this reconcilable, with the name given to the sixth trumpet in the chapter before, which is called a Trumpet of Woe?
The answer to this question is ; Every gift of God, which is a blessing to those who thankfully receive it, is also a woe to those who reject it. And the greater the blessing is to the one, the greater the woe is to the other. Observe that these last Trumpets are introduced with the solemn preamble, '' Woe, Woe, Woe to the inhabiters of the earth!" (Rev. viii. 13.) Remark those words, "the inhabiters of the earth," (this is the phrase in the Apocalypse for worldly men ; those who are "of the earth, earthy" those who have not their "conversation in heaven," Phil. iii. 20) ;

" by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the threeAngels, which are yet to sound." Observe also that in this Book the Seventh Trumpet, which announces the Resurrection of the Dead and the future Judgment, is called a Woe, the third Woe. And yet what greater blessing can be imagined to the righteous than the Resurrection of their bodies from their graves ? It will be the consummation of their bliss, and bring them to everlasting life - and glory in heaven. But it will be a terrible Woe to the Wicked. It speaks of " Come, ye blessed " to the one, but it speaks also of " Depart from Me, ye cursed" to the other. And therefore the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet, the Trumpet of Resurrection and Judgment, is called the third or last Woe. Indeed the characteristic attribute of all the Trumpets of the Apocalypse is that they warn a careless and godless world of the punitive character of God's visitations.'

( - C. Wordsworth, Miscellanies, Vol. 3 p. 100 fwd)

(continued...)

Tregelles (1850s) on Romanist Translation

2011-06-07T18:40:00.000-07:00

S.P. Tregelles, in 1859 and 1860, wrote to the TBS, referring to the practice of the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) in circulating Catholic versions of
the Bible:

"The important question is not the mere number of copies that are put into circulation, but the character of those copies and their freedom from doctrinal corruption. We should think but little of sermons preached, if we were only told that their number was very great, and we had reason to believe they did not set forth the Gospel of Christ, or if we knew that their object was to deny some foundation truth: one orthodox declaration of Jesus Christ crucified would be worth them all and more.
On the subject of the Romish versions, it seems however, to be peculiarly difficult to obtain a proper hearing, and to convince well-meaning persons that we are not justified in putting forth as the truth of God some known error in the hope of effecting some supposed extensive good... (September 12, 1860).

"Those who defend the circulation of the falisified Romish Version of Holy Scripture contually speak as if the differences between such and honestly made translations were so slight that the question is one of but little practical importance...
...
"We may well ask, Is it important whether we consider our Lord Jesus Christ to be the bruiser of the serpent’s head, or attribute this to the Virgin Mary? Is it of no consequence that the second commandment be altered so as to make it only forbid the rendering of supreme worship to images?"
[Catholic doctrine makes this change in order to allow for the idolatry which goes on within Catholicism with its multitudes of statues, pictures, and holy trinkets which are worshipped by the followers of Romanism.]
Are we to regard the substitution of penance in the place of repentance as of slight moment?
[The Catholic versions make all of these corruptions in their official Scriptures, either in the text, or through their footnotes and “explanations.”]
So I might go on with inquiry after inquiry, and the result would be the plain proof that the differences are serious indeed; for they substitute the false doctrine of Man for the truth inspired by the Holy Ghost, and they give apparent sanction of God to that which is so contrary to His Holy will.
Those who thus defend the corrupted versions show, that either they are really unacquainted with them, or else that they do not object to the false doctrine of Rome thus insidiously introduced. ...
But how do some engaged in circulating the Scriptures gain their experience? They would speak of copies sold, and of the individuals into whose hands they pass. But there is another kind of experience little known to such distributors or sellers, and the results of this I wish to state. Let anyone who intelligently knows the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ have to do not only with Bible distribution but also with the reading of Holy Scripture himself to Roman
Catholics. ...
He will be made to feel, point by point, that a single perverted word becomes of consequence. ... I have been repeatedly so circumstanced as to be made to feel this painfully. ... I speak from ample experience when I say, that there is no reasonable ground for regarding the differences as slight, unless, indeed, we seek to palliate Romish error."
(S. P. Tregelles, Sept. 17, 1859, quoted by Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, pp. 41-44).

Excerpted from Unholy Hands on God's Holy Book, by D. Cloud, (2006)

Streeter on Lucian

2011-06-06T04:49:00.000-07:00

I'm taking this from Nazaroo's blog and placing it here where it is more appropriately grouped with similar articles.

Streeter on Lucian

Jerome tells us that the Churches of Antioch and Constantinople preferred a text revised by the martyr Lucian, while at Alexandria the text approved of was that of a certain Hesychius.

Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyrii exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae Palestinae codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.

[From Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate version of Chronicles.]

Lucian of Antioch died a martyr AD 312.

The identity of the Hesychius here mentioned is uncertain, but he is generally supposed to be the Egyptian bishop of that name who also, in 307, suffered martyrdom.
In the passage just cited, Jerome is speaking of the Old Testament. (LXX)
But in the open letter to Damasus (cf. App. IV.), which stands as a preface to the Gospels in the Vulgate, he makes it clear that the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius included the New Testament as well.

The Revision by Lucian

It is practically certain that what I have spoken of as "the Byzantine text" of the NT goes back to this revision by Lucian of Antioch to which Jerome alludes. Or, to speak strictly, the Byzantine text, as it appears in the Textus Receptus, has the same relation to the text of Lucian as the ordinary printed editions of the Vulgate have to the text of Jerome. It is the same text, but somewhat corrupted during the Middle Ages, partly by the fresh errors of generations of copyists and partly by an infiltration of readings from the older text it superseded.

The evidence for this conclusion may be briefly summarised. It is stated in the Menologies - short accounts of a Saint for reading on his day - that Lucian bequeathed his pupils a copy of the Old and New Testaments written in three columns in his own hand.

A famous representative of the school of Lucian is John Chrysostom, who wrote at Antioch from 381 onwards.   Towards the end of his life he was for a short time, over the turn of the century AD 400, Patriarch of Constantinople. The quotations of the New Testament in his voluminous works are numerous;
and they prove that the text he used was substantially the Byzantine, apart from its mediaeval corruptions.

But the Byzantine text, we shall see, when closely examined looks as if it was formed as the result of a revision made on the principle of following alternately or, if possible, combining Alexandrian, Western and Eastern texts.

Also, a text giving just these particular combinations and alternations of readings is not found in the quotations of any Father earlier than Chrysostom;
but after that it becomes more and more common, beginning with writers connected with either Antioch or Constantinople, until it replaces all others.
The conclusion, then, seems obvious that the text of Chrysostom represents a revision made at or near Antioch early in the 4th century, and speedily adopted not only there but in Constantinople. And since Jerome, who had himself studied in both these cities before 380, expressly says that these Churches used the revised text of Lucian, it would seem gratuitous skepticism to suppose that the apparently revised text used by Chrysostom was other than that of Lucian.

But, if it be asked for, there is further evidence. Ulfilas who converted the Goths, translated the Gospels and parts of the Old Testament into Gothic.   As he died about 380, the Gothic version must be earlier than that date.    The Gothic is the first of the early versions to show a predominantly Byzantine text; and in 341 Ulfilas, we know, was consecrated Bishop at Antioch.

It may be added that the great LXX scholars, Field and Lagarde, starting from certain readings definitely marked as Lucianic in the Syro-Hexapla, produced convincing reasons for supposing that in some books certain MSS. of the Old Testament give the text of Lucian. [H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 82 ff.] The text of these MSS. agrees with the Old Testament quotations of Chrysostom, and also with such fragments of the Gothic version of the Old Testament as survive.    It is also remarkable that the Lucianic recension of the Old Testament appears, like the Lucianic text of the New Testament, to be a revision that aims at combining earlier texts.

The contention that the Byzantine text is an essentially revised text — following sometimes one, sometimes another of the earlier texts — made in or near Antioch about 300, was the foundation-stone of Westcott & Hort's theory of the textual criticism of the New Testament.    To appreciate its full force, the student must read the relevant parts of Hort's Introduction.   And nothing that has been discovered since appears to me to have weakened their case, so far as the main issue is concerned.    Hort himself believed that this revision was most probably the work of Lucian; but, to avoid committing himself on this point without further evidence, he gave this text the name "Syrian" to indicate that it originated in the Greek-speaking province of Syria of which Antioch was the capital. The name was unfortunately chosen.    It is very confusing to the uninitiated, who naturally suppose it implies some special connection with the "Syriac" versions — which belong, as a matter of fact, not to "Syria," but to the Syriac-speaking Church, whose centre was Edessa in Mesopotamia.
Moreover, the term "Syrian," though applicable to the original recension of Lucian, is not appropriate to the standard text of the Byzantine Empire if, as Hort himself thought, this is the result of a later revision. Whether the Byzantine text of the 9th centuryis identical with the text of Lucian or a slightly revised form of it is a question not easy to answer.

But, paradoxical as it sounds, it is this 9th century text that really concerns us most; for it was by the Byzantine standard, not by that of the actual text of Lucian — supposing these to be different — that MSS. of mixed texts, which are of such importance to the critic, have been corrected. It is, therefore, by deducting actual Byzantine, not hypothetical Lucianic, readings that we get back to the older element in their text. For these reasons I have reverted to Griesbach's nomenclature, and speak of this text, not as "Syrian," but as BYZANTINE.

But there are some important respects in which Hort's view of the constituent elements in the Lucianic revision must be modified in the light of subsequent discovery. As Burkitt points out, in the Additional Notes contributed by him to the 2nd edition of Westcott/Hort's Greek Testament (p. 330),
"a text like Syr. S. stands in places against א B D united, entering not infrequently as an independent constituent element into the Antiochian (Syrian) text."
A notable instance is the famous

'On earth peace, goodwill towards men.'

Here the reading of Syr. S. has passed into the Textus Receptus, against the united testimony of א B D Latt., which read

'peace among men in whom he is well pleased.'

So again the Byzantine text reads ἄριστον, with Syr. S. and C., Arm., against the ἄρτον of א B D Latt. in Lk. 14:15.

Conflate readings, in which the Lucianic text puts side by side a variant found in א B with the alternative given in D Lat., formed one of the most striking pieces of evidence adduced by Hort to prove that the Lucianic text was a revision based on texts of the other types. Hence a "conflate reading," in which Syr. S. supplies one member and א B and D Lat. combined provide the other, is striking evidence, not only of the independence of the Syr. S. type of text, but of the importance attached to it by the revisers.

Of the instances quoted by Burkitt, Mk. 1:13 may be cited.
The Byzantine text reads ἐκεῖ ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ. One member of this phrase, ἐκεῖ , is found in Syr. S., supported in this instance by some representatives of fam. Θ; the other member, ἐν τῷ ἐρήμῳ, is in א B D Latt.

Another very pretty example is noted by Prof. Lake. [J.T.S., Jan. 1900, p. 291.]
The Byzantine μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε μηδὲ μελετᾶτε (or προμελετᾶτε) (Mk.i.11) is a conflation of μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε B D Latt., etc., with μὴ προμελετᾶτε Ψ 047 Syr. S.
Another example is the reading of the T.R. in Lk.ii.5,
τῇ μεμνηστευμένη αὐτοῦ γυναικί "his betrothed wife."
Here ἐμνηστευμένη without γυναικί is read by א B;
but Syr. S., supported by a, b, c, ff ², reads "wife,"
omitting the word for "betrothed."
Curiously enough, D and e in this case support B against the combined Latin and Syriac.

Character of the Recension

If the Lucianic revision originated in Antioch, the revisers (we should expect) would start with a bias in favour of the traditional text of that Church.
Nevertheless, the Byzantine text is fundamentally nearer to the Alexandrian than to the "Western" type.      There was an ancient rivalry between Antioch and Alexandria, and antecedently we should not have expected an Antiochian revision to start off, as it were, from the Alexandrian text.

Burkitt suggests that the fall of Paul of Samosata, 270, may have had something to do with it.   Certainly this meant the triumph of the "catholic" as opposed to the "nationalist" tendency in theology; and it is possible that Lucian definitely set out to produce a "catholic" recension of the Scriptures.     That is, he may have sent for MSS. from Alexandria, Ephesus, and, perhaps, even Rome, and endeavoured, with the aid of these as well as the local text of Antioch, to produce a text representing the combined traditions of the Great Churches.
Whether because of the special prestige enjoyed by Alexandrian scholarship in regard to textual criticism in general, or from the accident that of the MSS. he used the Alexandrian happened to be the oldest, he seems to have taken that text as the basis for his revision.

Strange, then, as it sounds, it really does look as if Lucian and his fellow-revisers were in very much the same position as the English and American revisers after another 1500 years.   All desired to restore the true original text of the Gospels, all desired to retain the traditional text of their own Church, except in so far as the latest researches in textual criticism made this impossible, and all accepted MSS of the א B . type as the best
It would, however, seem a fair presumption that the majority of readings in which the earliest form of the Lucianic text differs from that of א B L is likely to represent a text traditional at Antioch.

This leads us to take a slightly different view of the so-called "Western" element in the Lucianic text. Most of the "Western" readings adopted by Lucian might have been derived from either Syr. S. or D, since there is so much in common between these two. But if, on other grounds, we regard Syr. S. as descended from the old text of Antioch, then we should suppose that Lucian did, as a matter of fact, adopt these readings because they occurred in the current text of Antioch, and did not go abroad, as it were, to derive them from MSS. of the type of D.

What, then, are we to say of the readings in the Lucianic text which occur in D but not in Syr. S.? They may, as suggested above, have been derived from MSS. brought from Ephesus or Rome for the use of the revisers.

But this hypothesis is not absolutely necessary; for obviously the phenomenon cannot be considered apart from the occurrence in Syr. C. of D readings not found in Syr. S. and of the occurrence in the text of Eusebius of D readings not found in fam. Θ.
The text of Syr. C., it is generally agreed, is later than that of Syr. S.;
Eusebius is later than Origen, who in Eusebius' own city seems to have used the fam. Θ text; and Lucian of Antioch is later than the translator of Syr. S., who may be presumed to have used the old text of Antioch.

In each case we have evidence that the D element is later. We have already seen that the later text of Alexandria suffered considerably through infiltration of Western readings. It would look as if the same thing happened everywhere. Indeed, if Italy and Asia both used a text of the D type, it would be inevitable that copies of the Gospels brought by Christians from these provinces should everywhere be a source of mixture.

We conclude, then, that the old text of Antioch had suffered a degeneration similar to that we find in the later Alexandrian MSS, and that the Antiochene MSS used by Lucian had much the same relation to the Greek text underlying Syr. S. as C L 33 579 have to B.

That is, he used a form of the old text of Antioch corrupted by stylistic amendment, assimilation of parallels, and an infiltration of readings from texts of both the D and the א B L type.

The importance of this point is largely indirect. It bears on the question, whence did Lucian get the readings known to us only from their occurrence in the Byzantine text. Most of the readings of the Byzantine text, which do not also occur in one or other of the earlier texts, are of the nature either of minor stylistic improvements or of assimilation of the text of one Gospel to a parallel passage in another.

Very few look original; but Lucian must have found them somewhere.
Hort held that the Lucianic revision was based solely on texts of the three types of early text which he distinguished —

the NEUTRAL, represented by    B א
" the ALEXANDRIAN,"                C L;
and the WESTERN,                D Old Lat.

He concluded that any readings of the Lucianic text not to be found in our existing authorities for these earlier texts were either very late or due to the editorial efforts of the revisers.
The discovery of Syr. S. has shown that some readings of the Lucianic text were older than Hort supposed.   But two incomplete MSS of the Old Syriac form but slender evidence for the old Greek text of Antioch, and it is probable that some of the readings of the Lucianic text that do not appear in the Syriac were derived from the old text of Antioch.

It is even possible that some of the agreements with the Byzantine text found in Origen's Commentary on Matthew may be original. Most of these are no doubt due to scribes and translators who have modified what he actually wrote to conform with their own Biblical text. But some may well be readings common to the texts of Antioch and Caesarea.

Unfortunately we cannot detect such readings in Θ and its allies, supposing any occur there, simply because we have no means of distinguishing them from the admixture of Byzantine readings due to later revisers. Thus we have really no means of identifying those readings of the old text of Antioch, which survive in the Byzantine text, but which do not happen to occur in the Old Syriac, except internal probability.

That criterion is, as a matter of fact, unfavourable to most characteristically Byzantine readings; but there are some few that I think are deserving of more serious consideration than was accorded them by Hort.

For the old Alexandrian text we have MS evidence not substantially inferior to that possessed by Lucian, and we know how to use it better; but for the various types of Eastern text Lucian must have had MSS. of a greater variety and better quality than any we possess. Hence, though the principles on which he made use of them may have been the reverse of critical, to say offhand that he has never preserved an ancient reading for which we have no other authority seems over-bold.

The fifth-century Codex A is the earliest Greek MS. giving a text which is approximately that of Lucian, though it seems to have a small proportion of readings belonging to earlier texts. The name Alexandrinus which it bears (it was given to Charles I. by a Patriarch of Alexandria) is thus another pitfall for the innocent student, who naturally supposes that the text it represents is Alexandrian; and, curiously enough, outside the Gospels its text is Alexandrian;
for the rest of the NT, A is a most constant ally of B .א

[The evidence for the ordinary view that it was written in Alexandria has been seriously shaken by Burkitt (J.T.S., 1910, pp. 603 fi.), who suggests that it came, via Mt. Athos, from Constantinople. Personally, I should rather assign it to some place like Caesarea or Berytus (Beyrout) halfway between Antioch and Alexandria — for three reasons.

It contains, immediately after the New Testament, the two Epistles of Clement. An attempt to assign to these canonical or quasi-canonical authority is made in the Apostolic Constitutions, a late fourth-century work which undoubtedly emanated from that part of the world.
The combination of an Antiochian text of the Gospels with an Alexandrian text of the Acts and Epistles suggests some place where the influence of Antioch and of Alexandria met.
Its text of the Old Testament appears to be a non-Alexandrian text heavily revised by the Hexapla, which we know was the dominant text of Palestine.
The quotations of the LXX in New Testament writers and Josephus more often than not agree with A against B, which MS. seems to represent a pre-Origenic Alexandrian text (H. B. Swete, op. cit. p. 395).
But the Gentile mission started from Antioch, not Alexandria; and the New Testament writers and Josephus wrote in Antioch, Asia Minor, or Borne;
and would be likely to have used the Antiochian rather than the Alexandrian recension of the Jewish Bible.]

In von Soden's opinion, the purest form of Lucian's text is to be found in the group S V Ω, which he calls the K¹ text. In this judgement he may be right; but it is safer to regard this text as that received at Constantinople in the VI^cent, and thus as the purest type of the "Byzantine" text. The group E F G H he regards as the K¹ text, with a small infusion of "Ferrar" readings. Another group, headed by K Π, preserves, he thinks, the text used by Chrysostom in his Homilies on John and has a small mixture of "I" readings; he regards A as a member of this group with a few intrusive readings.

But once it is conceded that Lucian's revision was based on the eclectic principle of choosing, now an Alexandrian, now a "Western" reading, it ceases to be of any great importance to know, in the case of any particular reading, whether as a matter of fact it is the one which Lucian happened to prefer.
All that really matters is the broad fact that the Byzantine text is ultimately descended from his revision.
Whether the oldest form of it is to be found in A or E or S is a comparatively small matter. The difference between the text of A and that of most of the uncials in the long list headed by E and ending with S V in an ordinary Apparatus Criticus is really very small. (Ω was unknown to Tischendorf, and von Soden does not give its readings.

[Von Soden assigns Ω to VIII^cent., but Dr. Blake (having photographed the original on Mt. Athos) tells me he feels certain it is late IX^cent. or X^cent.. If so, no MS. earlier than IX^cent. gives the K¹ text; but von Soden holds that it is found in the VI^cent. Purple MSS. (apart from their I mixture).)]

In fact, the group A E S would be found supporting one another far more often than the leading members of the Egyptian group א B L.
The one really important reading which was certainly absent from the text of Lucian, although it is found, sometimes with, sometimes without, asterisks or obeli, in a majority of the Byzantine MSS., is the Pericope Adulterae (Jn.7:53-8:11).

Metzger on the Lucianic Recension

2011-06-05T15:15:00.000-07:00

Although we don't subscribe to Metzger's text-critical theories, he does a good job of summarizing the evidence regarding Lucian, and his recension of the Old and New Testaments:

"I. ANCIENT TESTIMONIES TO LUCIAN AND HIS TEXTUAL WORK

The earliest references to Lucian are two brief and highly favorable estimates which Eusebius includes in his Church History. Here Lucian is described as a presbyter of Antioch, "whose entire life was most excellent (aristos)" (VIII.xiii.2), and as "a most excellent man in every respect, temperate in life and well-versed
in sacred learning" (IX.vi.3).

Later in the fourth century Jerome makes three references to Lucian which differ considerably in temper and appreciation of his work. The differences are no doubt to be accounted for by considering the several contexts and Jerome's immediate purpose in referring to Lucian. On the one hand, when Jerome is comparing his own work as reviser of the Old Latin text with similar work by others in Greek, he is rather severe in his judgment of Lucian. Thus in his Preface to the Four Gospels, which takes the form of an open letter addressed to Pope Damasus and which was composed perhaps about the year 383, he refers somewhat contemptuously to the "manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, the authority of which is perversely maintained by a few disputatious persons."

Continuing in the same vein Jerome condemns the work of Lucian and Hesychius as infelicitous:

"It is obvious that these writers could not emend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture already exist in the languages of many nations which show that their additions are false." (1a)

Subsequently, in the Preface to his translation of the books of Chronicles, Jerome makes a more temperate allusion to the work of Lucian and other Biblical scholars. In referring to the diversity of the editions of the Greek Old Testament, he declares that three are current in various parts of the Empire:

"Alexandria and Egypt in their [copies of the] Septuagint praise Hesychius as author; Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies [containing the text] of Lucian the martyr; the middle provinces between these read the Palestinian codices edited by Origen, which Eusebius and Pamphilus published."(1)

In his valuable Lives of Illustrious Men, written soon after A.D.
392, Jerome is still more generous in his description of Lucian. Here, in a biographical sketch devoted to the martyr from Antioch, he characterizes him as "a man of great talent" and "so diligent in the study of the Scriptures that even now certain copies of the Scriptures bear the name of Lucian." (2)

What is of special importance is the declaration that copies of the Scriptures (and not just of the Septuagint, as Jerome is sometimes quoted) passed under the name of Lucianea.

Information of the widespread use of Lucian's recension of the Psalter is contained in Jerome's letter to Sunnias and Fretela (about A.D. 403). These two Gothic churchmen had inquired of Jerome why his own Latin Psalter (the so-called Roman Psalter) differed so frequently from the Septuagint. In his reply Jerome points out that they have been misled by their edition of the Septuagint, which varied widely from the critical text of Origen given in the Hexapla
and used by himself. Jerome writes:

"You must know that there is one edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greek commentators call 'Koine'[common], that is common and widespread, and is by most people now called Lucianic; and there is another, that of the Septuagint, which is found in the manuscripts of the Hexapla, and has been faithfully translated by us into Latin." (3)

Here Jerome distinguishes the Lucianic text from that of the Hexapla, and indicates that the former met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate or common text.

Later testimonies refer to Lucian's competence in Hebrew. For example, Suidas and Simeon Metaphrastes (in the Passio S. Luciani martyris) assert that "he translated [literally, renewed] them all [i.e. the books of the Old Testament] again from the Hebrew language, of which he had a very accurate knowledge, spending much labor on the work." (4)

Though Lucian may have consulted Hebrew in connection with his revision of the Septuagint, this statement is obviously exaggerated in the manner of hagiographers.

More sober, and doubtless nearer to the truth of what Lucian
attempted to do, is the description of pseudo-Athanasius in his
Synopsis sacrae scripturae:

"Using the earlier editions [i.e. of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus] and the Hebrew, and having accurately surveyed the expressions which fell short of or went beyond the truth, and having corrected them in their proper places, he published them for the Christian brethren." (5)

Among testimonia of uncertain origin there is an unequivocal statement that Lucian concerned himself with the New Testament as well as the Old. Under the date of October 15, the Menaeon of the Greek Church (this is a liturgical volume which includes short accounts of saints and martyrs to be read on their festivals) states that Lucian made a copy with his own hand of both the Old and New Testaments, written in three columns, which afterwards belonged to the Church in Nicomedia.(6) Substantially the same information in a more extended hagiographical context is contained in the Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae for October 15. (7)

This list of testimonies may be brought to a close with a reference to the condemnation of Lucian in the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, where mention is made of "Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, Evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha" (v, iii, 8-9). It is generally agreed that this statement rests upon a misunderstanding of the critical remarks of Jerome. (8).

By way of summarizing ancient testimonies concerning Lucian's textual work, we find that his contemporaries generally regarded him as an able scholar, entirely competent to undertake such a recension. As a native Syrian he could, of course, have consulted the Syriac version; he also appears to have had some acquaintance with Hebrew. As would have been expected, he made use of previous Greek translations of the Old Testament, and sought to adjust the Greek to the underlying Hebrew text. But we are told nothing as to the amount of revision which he undertook in either Old or New Testament text, the nature of the manuscripts which he consulted, the relation of his work to the Hexapla, and other similar matters. For information bearing on such problems, we must turn to the manuscripts which have been thought to contain the Lucian recension."

(Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT TC,
"The Lucianic Recension" (1963) p. 3 - 8)

mr. scrivener

W. L. Richards' review of K.D. Clarke's "Textual Optimism"

2011-05-30T06:46:00.000-07:00

Richards in 2002 offered a review of Clarke's book (avail. on the internet in .pdf).

Textual Optimism: a Critique of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament

What is good about the review is that it gives a good summary of the contents and position of Clarke's book:

"The basic thesis of Clarke’s evaluation of the upgrading of “certainty” in the rating of variants by the editors in UBS 4 over the three previous editions is not only overly optimistic, as the title of his book suggests, but also is methodologically inconsistent and devoid of delineated criteria for making these optimistic judgments.
As a background to his investigation of the ratings within the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (UBS), Clarke provides in chapter 1 a helpful overview of the textual tradition behind the four editions, beginning with the contributions of Westcott and Hort and continuing with key developments since their time. Of particular value is the specific information lying behind each of the four UBS editions as well as helpful information as to how the UBS text and the Nestle-Aland text eventually ended up being the same. Clarke tabulates in two columns some important differences that remain between the UBS and Nestle-Aland critical editions (68-9).
In chapter 2 the author focuses on the differences of the rating in UBS 4 as compared to the first three editions, providing many charts (drawn from several appendices) showing the number of modifications in UBS 4 with the previous editions. The massive amount of statistical data bears out Clarke’s contention that UBS 4 represents the text of the Greek NT as far “more certain” than the previous editions. H is first ch art, for example, shows that UBS 4 has approximately four times as many A readings as were given in the previous UBS editions (514 to 136 or less). Correspondingly, UBS 4 shows a significant decrease in the number of C and D readings: 27 percent of the total in UBS 4 as compared to 58 percent in UBS 3 ( the first two ed itions differ slightly form UBS 3 ).
This results in the number of B read ings rem aining nearly the same in all four editions, and this is to be expected, for while ma ny of the form er B readings have been elevated to A status in UBS 4 , many of the former C and D readings have also been elevated, leaving us with approximately the same number of B readings. But whereas the percentage of B readings is the same, the readings com prising the new totals are quite d iffere nt. What used to be a four-step rating system (A-D) has now become a three-step system (the D rating now makes up just one percent in the UBS4 as compared to nine percent in the previous editions (91).
...
Clarke repeatedly asks why the UBS4 editors did not account for these major shifts toward certainty, holding that the explanation given in the introduction to the fourth edition for the changes is insufficient. But more, he believes that the shifts were made as a result of flawed methods and logic. Major proof for this comes in his analysis of the only two texts in UBS 4 that were given a three-step upgrade (D to A): Luke 19:25 and Acts 2:44. His point is that if the committee could make such a major upgrade in these two places where, upon analysis, Clarke concludes they should not have, how can we trust their judgments elsewhere? (155 fn and 1 76).
...
(As a matter of interest to me, for years I felt that the ratings in UBS 1-3 were often too cautious, frequently making my own upgrades in the classroom, and, interestingly, doing so on precisely the same grou nds used by Clarke to draw his negative conclu sions about the optim ism of the editors of UBS4 , namely, “the recognized principles of New Testament textual criticism” [14].)
The questions raised by Clarke are important apart from the fact that one may not agree completely with his conclusions."
(excerpted from Richards, Book Review)

mr.scrivener

Uncial Talk (5) - Greek Script: Ullman

2011-05-26T09:22:00.000-07:00

The following is from B. L. Ullman, Ancient Writing and Its Influence (1932):

"Chapter VI: The Development of Greek Script
...
The papyrus finds of Egypt have furnished us with material for a study of Greek writing from the 4th cent. B.C. to the 8th cent. A.D. Essentially there are two styles -- the literary book-hand and the cursive hand of everyday use. These interact on each other from time to time.   The book-hand starts out with a character very similar to that of the inscriptions, as may be seen from the 4th cent. MS of Timotheus.   In the 3rd century, as a result no doubt of cursive influence, it becomes Uncial, i.e., some fo the letters become rounded.

First Σ becomes C; next E becomes e, and Ω becomes ω. Soon after we find Z for I , and α for A, and this eventually becomes a. At the beginning of our era M has become U, the typical later Uncial form.   Under obvious cursive influence the three strokes of Ξ becomes ξ. Thus we see a gradually developing uncial script from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D.

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries we find side by side with the broad Uncial a sloping, compressed Uncial, much as today we find vertical and slanting forms of writing side by side.

In the meantime there arose a cursive hand, used for business purposes, in which letters were written together instead of separately. This was at times written quite as carefully as the book-hand, just as our cursive hand also has its regularized type form, called "script". The details of its evolution are of no interest to us here. It is sufficient to point out that the changes in the the book-hand were due to its influence. We can definitely say, for example, that the round alpha came into the book-hand from the cursive, for it is found two centuries earlier in cursive than in the book-hand. Similarly with other letters.
It seems to be true that the chief borrowings from cursive came at two periods, one about 300 B.C., when Alexandria became the most important city of the Greek world, and the other nearly 300 years later, when the Romans took over Egypt.
It is natural that new political situations should affect the style of writing; history shows many such examples.
To the earlier of these two periods we owe the forms ε C ω; to the latter, a U ξ.   It is also worth noting that not all cursive forms affected the book-hand, but those which did generally required a century or two to succeed. It is not impossible that Roman writing had an influence on both cursive and book-hands in the earlier period as it surely did in the later.

The earliest parchment MSS that have survived date from the 3rd or 4th century A.D.   They are written essentially in the Uncial characters of the papyrus scrolls. But the new material led to a differentiation in that it permitted the shading of letters to a much greater extent.   It is true that some papyri show shading, but this probably is due to imitation of writing on parchment. The ambrosian Homer of the 3rd or 4th century is thought to be our earliest example of a parchment book.   Other MSS of the 4th cent. are the Vatican and Sinai Bibles; the Codex Alexandrinus is attributed to the following century.
Codex B (Vat. 1209)

Compressed, Sloping Uncial Script:

The handsome, broad Uncial, with its square and round letters, continued to be used until about the 6th century, and was contemporary with its Roman counterpart. But the sloping, compressed Uncial found in the papyri was also used on parchment, though at first it was less common. The reason is obvious: it is a time and space-saving script, and in the earlier centuries, at least in Egypt, parchment was still the more expensive material and was used only when saving of time and space was not a consideration. The most important early MS in sloping Uncials is the Washington (Freer Codex W) MS of the Gospels, which is thought to have been written in the 4th century.   This style of writing eventually became the dominant type.    It developed as its chief characteristic very heavy lines contrasted with fine ones and teneded to become pointed, like the Gothic style of Roman writing.   Upright forms with the same characteristics are also found.   This type, which became common in the 9th century, is called Slavonic Uncial because it formed the basis for the alphabet used in the Slavic languages. After that the Uncial became more and more artificial.   It lasted in an upright form until about the 12th century.

Codex W

The Minuscule Hand:

With the 9th century we come to a crossroads in the history of Greek writing.   The main road of Uncial goes on, but its traffic is that of the Slavic alphabet.   The Greek traffic is diverted to a road that before crossing the main road was little known but now becomes the main highway for the Greek alphabet.   That road, known as the cursive before it crosses the other highway, is the minuscule.

It is only necessary to examine the highly artificial Uncial writing of the 10th or 11th century to see that something was bound to happen.   Writing such as this could not last. It is not surprising therefore that in the 9th century a minuscule style of writing based on the old cursive came into use as a formal book-hand.

This style of writing, called "old minuscule", is at its best in the 9th and 10th centuries. Though the letters are connected, there are no extreme ligatures; many of them involve the letter sigma.   The letters are well rounded. In shape they are in general similar to modern Greek minuscules, except beta, which is similar to our u; zeta, which is at first like our 3, later has the Uncial Z form; eta, which is like our h; kappa which looks like our li without a dot; nu, which is round at the bottom like a mu without the last stroke.; pi, which has the form ω.
The script may be compared in general with the Caroline minuscules of the Roman alphabet in the 9th and 10th centuries, to which it possibly owes its inspiration.   The 9th century is noteworthy also because the use of accents and breathings becomes general, in both Uncial and minuscule manuscripts.
[insert Vat. Gr 190]

Later Minuscule Styles:

In the following centuries we find what is called the "middle minuscule", whose chiefe characteristic is the use of the Uncial formst of many letters, especially beta, eta, and kappa. We are on the way to a welding of Uncial and minuscule scripts. At times it seems as if the result might e a cursive Uncial. In fact Uncial forms of every letter can be found in one or another MS of this period, but they are joined together in the cursive manner. Ligatures and abbreviations become more numerous.

[plate V Pierpont Morgan Lib. MS 639, 12 cent. Gosp.]

From the 13th century on we have preserved to us a number of more carelessly written MSS, filled with ligatures and abbreviations. In this respect the script recalls the contemporary Gothic of Western Europe, though in appearance they are quite unalike. SOme letters have many shapes in the same MSS; most have at least two.   It was a period of formlessness and carelessness, produced or at least assisted by political turmoil. Furthermore, the introduction of paper, the new cheap writing material, was responsible for a lesser degree of care in writing.

[Vat. Gr 144 1439 A.D.]

With the reawakening of interest in Greek in 15th cent. Italy, Greek scholars and scribes came to Italy, especially after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.   Naturally they brought with them the undesirable writing then current.
It was this unfortunate time that printing began, and the early Greek books printed in Italy preserve all the numerous ligatures and other peculiarities of this writing.   In the course of centuries the printed forms gradually became simplified under the influence of the Roman script, but it was not until the 19th century that all ligatures disappeared.    Even so the present printed form of Greek is less beautiful and less legible than Roman type.   As Rutherford said:
"Nothing could well be imagined less likely to call up ideas of art or beauty than a modern page of printed Greek."
Very recently there have been suggestions in Greece that the Greek alphabet be abandoned in favor of the Roman for the printed and written forms of modern Greek. Unfortunately it is unlikely by reason of national pride that this movement will make much headway. "
(Ullman, p. 46-56)

mr.scrivener

Classic Encycl. on Von Soden's Theory

2011-05-23T12:51:00.000-07:00

Here is the Classic Online Encyclopedia's entry, based on the Encyclopedia Brittannica (1911):

"...Von Soden introduces, besides a new notation of MSS. (see Bible, N.T. MSS. and versions), a new theory of textual history. He thinks that in the 4th century there were in existence three recensions of the text, which he distinguishes as K, H and I, with the following characteristics and attestations.

K corresponds roughly to Westcott and Hort's Syrian Antiochian text [= Byzantine text]; it was probably made by Lucian in the 4th century. This was in the end the most popular form of text, and is found in a more or less degenerate state in all late MSS. The purest representatives are 61(52), 75 (V), 92, (461), 94, 1027 (5), 1126 (476 = scrivener's k) ε179 (661). Later recensions of K are called K' and Kr , and there are also others of less importance which represent the combination of K with other texts.

H represents Westcott and Hort's Neutral and Alexandrian texts between which von Soden does not distinguish.
It is found in eleven MSS. in varying degrees of purity: δ1(B), δ2 (א), δ3 (C), δ6 (Ψ), 8 8 ε26 (Z), ε6 ε1026 (892), 6 37 1 (1241) and 376 (579). Between these MSS. there is no very intimate connexion except between δ1 and δ2 (B and א) which represent a common original (δ1-δ2). B is the best representative of H, but it has been contaminated by the Egyptian versions, and sometimes by the K and I texts and by Origen, though not to any great extent.
The other H MSS. are none of them equal in value to the two great uncials. They have all been influenced by K, I, and by the text of parallel passages, to a greater extent than δ1-δ2, or than either of the two witnesses to δ1-δ2, but some of them have less Egyptian corruption.
The origin of the H text must be regarded as unquestionably Egyptian, in view of the fact that it was used by all the Egyptian Church writers after the end of the 3rd century, and von Soden adopts the well-known hypothesis, first made popular by Bousset, that it represents the recension of Hesychius.

I does not quite correspond to anything in Westcott and Hort's system, but has points of contact with their "Western" text. It is found in a series of subgroups of MSS. known as Hr, J, Ia , and others of less importance (about eleven subgroups are suggested). Of these Hr is a family [Family 1] containing Codex 1 and its allies (6254, ε34 6, 6 457, 5 467, &c.), ε288 (22) and some allied MSS. ε203 (872), ε183 and 1131; J is the well-known Ferrar group; [family 13] and Ia contains δ5 (D), 93 (565), (700), 050 and some others. It is necessary to note that von Soden is able to place D in this group because he regards it as owing many of its most remarkable readings to contamination with the Latin version. I is, according to von Soden, a Palestinian recension connected with Eusebius, Pamphilus and Origen.

After establishing the text of I, H and K, von Soden reconstructs an hypothetical text, I-H-K, which he believes to have been their ancestor. He then tries to show that this text was known to all the writers of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, but has naturally to account for the fact that the quotations of these writers and the text of the early versions often diverge from it. The explanation that he offers is that the Diatessaron of Tatian was widely used and corrupted all extant texts, so that the Old Syriac, the Old Latin, the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and others may be regarded as various combinations of the Tatianic text and I-H-K. Finally, he tries to show that the Tatianic text is itself in the main merely a corrupt form of I-H-K altered in order to suit the necessities of Tatian's plan.

For criticism of this important theory up to 1909 see Nestle's Pinfiihrung in das griechische neue Testament, pp. 274-278 (3rd ed., Göttingen, 1909), and K. Lake's Professor H. von Soden's Treatment of the Text of the Gospels, Edinburgh, 1908). (K. L.)

I had to clean up their MS citations, but this may not be 100%.

From a review of The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew. By Amy S. Anderson. (New Testament Tools and Studies, 32.) Leiden: Brill, 2004

"Family 1 of the Gospels was edited by Kirsopp Lake from four or five manuscripts in 1902 and has been accepted as an entity and quoted as such ever since. Hermann Freiherr von Soden, in his work begun in 1902, identified a somewhat enlarged group of witnesses, including those used by Lake, giving it the sigla H^r in the analysis volumes, changed to Iη in the text volume. Amongst those enlarging the group was one of the many manuscripts brought to light by his team of young scholars, in this instance from the Athos monastery of Vatopedi, bearing the call number 949. To this was assigned the serial (now GA= Gregory–Aland) number of 1582. It is not known who the discoverer was; indeed Anderson's form of words does not mention von Soden's enterprise as the locus of discovery at all. The English scholar B. H. Streeter spoke highly of 1582 in his book The Four Gospels, drawing attention to significant readings and important critical notes in the margin. After the publication of von Soden's work, Silva Lake, in her revision of Kirsopp Lake's book The Text of the New Testament (1928), included 1582 in her account of Family 1.

mr.scrivener

Samson (1882) on Poole, Hug, and Tregelles

2011-05-22T23:55:00.000-07:00


Samson on the RV (1881)

Samson's review of the over-correcting of the Revised Version (RV 1881) led to his publication of his booklet, The English Revisers' Greek Text. In this substantial treatment, which includes a detailed description of Hug's work, he summarizes the rules of Textual Criticism of three main editors, Poole, Hug, and Tregelles, comparing and contrasting their ideas and the results:

Tregelles as Napoleon

"RULES FOR DECIDING THE TRUE GREEK NT TEXT

Three of the leading writers, whose combined researches must guide the impartial student, namely, Poole, Hug and Tregelles, state the principles which have guided Christian scholars of all ages in the determination of the true text of the New Testament Greek Scriptures.

The grounds of Poole's judgment, though not formally brought together, are learned from his repeated arguments in discussing especially the omissions in certain Greek uncial manuscripts and in some versions. Thus as to the omission of the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, found in the uncial manuscripts (MSS), now indicated as C and D, which he had examined, as also in the Latin of Jerome and of the Vulgate, Poole states these principles:

The doxology is found in the "mother language"; meaning in the Greek text as received to this day in the Greek and Oriental Church. As to the omission of the doxology in the uncial MSS, he argues that an insertion in the sacred text necessarily implies studied invention and designed alteration; while an omission implies merely unintentional neglect.

As to the versions the Latin is but one of many "daughters"; and that one more remote from its "mother" than the Oriental versions which retain it. As to the Latin fathers, who omit the doxology in quoting the Lord's Prayer, it may have been, he suggests, Luke's briefer statement of that prayer which they had in mind; while, on the other hand, he urges that the quotation of that doxology by leading Greek fathers is positive, and not like the Latin omission of it, mere negative testimony.

HUG'S ELABORATE RULES OF JUDGING

Hug presents more formally his "Principles of Criticism" in a chapter following his exhaustive discussion of the Greek MSS and of the varied ancient versions. He is emphatic in rebuking those who, from doctrinal or philological prejudice, fix on a class of manuscripts or on a selection of variations in differing classes of manuscripts of versions and of patristic citations which chance to favor their previous opinions. He says : "It has ceased to be the case that a scholar, irresolute which of the multitude he should follow, can, according to his taste, or his preference for a particular manuscript, or a liking for some peculiarity, some new various readings in a particular Codex, or other grounds not at all better, select and form a text which may be destroyed by the next editor; who does it only to see the same right exercised upon him by his successor."

Hug classifies all the authorities, including Greek manuscripts, versions and patristic citations, under four heads ; those following

(1) the koine ekdosis (common text)
(2) the Hesychian recension,
(3) the Lucian recension,
(4) the recension of Origen ;

and he enumerates the manuscripts and the versions or parts of versions which respectively follow these four classes of authorities. Among these the following are important as guides in forming a just decision as to the omissions found in the Canterbury revision.

The text of the "koine ekdosis" rules the Gospels, Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles in the codices D, Cambridge and Parisian ; it prevails throughout the Syriac Peschito and pervades the Syriac of Charkel ; and it controlled in the early Latin versions.

On the other hand the Hesychian recension guided the Egyptian copyists in the Gospels of codices B and C, or the Vatican and Ephraeem manuscripts ; and also in the Acts and in all the Epistles of codices A, B, C ; or the Alexandrine, Vatican and Ephraeem manuscripts. Thus, according to this most comprehensive as well as logical collator, the uncials, now trusted as supreme authority, were made from a text which Origen, and after him every branch of the Christian Church has regarded as influenced by doctrinal views opposed to the Divine nature and to the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Hug had not the third of the three most complete uncials, the Sinaitic; but Tischendorff's collation of the three shows their common character. Referring to the "common text," Hug says : "The koine ekdosis, as we have shown, exhibits the ancient text ; but with many alterations which it underwent during the second and a part of the third century." This statement, as to the "koine ekdosis," the unbiassed student perceives, has received from Hug this qualification only to prepare the way for the author's defence of the omissions incorporated into the Latin Vulgate; which, as we shall see Hug tacitly admits, follow the Egyptian uncials and the Hesychian recension.

The three recensions of Lucian, Hesychius, and Origen were all made nearly at the same time, at the close of the 3rd century. The settled judgment of the Greek Church, in the beginning of the 4th century, established the text of the MSS prepared by Constantine's order; and that early decision as to the respective merit of each recension as compared with the "koine ekdosis," is still authoritative in all branches of the Oriental Church.

With great elaborateness Hug lays down rules to guide in deciding as to interpolations and omissions in the true Greek text. He recognizes as undeniable the fact that the "koine ekdosis" was the standard when the several recensions and versions were made; and that, therefore, when all agree, which is the case in the great body of the different manuscripts, the true text is assured.

Interpolations, which are rare, have arisen mainly from "harmonies " [harmonization]; in which the fuller text of one evangelist might come to be inserted by a careless copyist in another; while, in cases very rare, marginal notes, not belonging to the text, may have been incorporated.

A careful comparison of the Egyptian uncials reveals cases of both these kinds; though they are so infrequent in comparison with the omissions as to give special weight to Poole's rule on this point. The causes which have led to the numerous omissions are mainly these :

First, where one clause ended with words similar to those in a clause following, the eye of the copyist, especially of the mechanical Egyptian copyists, wandered past the intervening clause.
Second, omissions were made intentionally, when synonymous expressions followed each other and were regarded by the copyist as expletives [redundant].
Third, tautological expressions, common to Hebrew writers, seemed to Greek copyists of limited experience, to be unimportant, and so were omitted.

To every thoughtful student it must be apparent that these causes for omissions would be specially operative in the Egyptian copyists, as they are faithfully characterized by Hug; men ignorant of both the subject and wording of what they transcribed ; not discriminating between the inspired and uninspired Christian writings; and working as paid laborers on what had for them no interest, since even the language of the records was not understood by many of their number.

Hug's rules for restoration of such omissions are substantially these : In the first case "what is omitted must be restored to the text," without hesitation. In the second and third cases, the omission of one copy must be restored from an accordant text in other copies. The elaborately considered and for the most part impartially balanced decisions of Hug, the Roman Catholic, so in keeping with those of the earlier judgment of the Protestant Poole, must rule in the close of the 19th century; for their rule has been legitimate alike in Origen of the 3rd, in Jerome of the 5th, in Poole of the 17th and in Hug at the opening of the present century [1800s]. The legitimacy of this ruling is made demonstrative by the fact that the "common text," subjected in every important age of the Christian Church to precisely the same tests which now are trying it, has constantly received new and growing confidence among the earnest Christian scholars of each succeeding era of investigation.

TREGELLES' RULES FOR DETERMINING THE TEXT

The carefully considered rules of Tregelles are laid down under nine heads; the 6th of which has six subdivisions. These are stated in his own words where their ruling is at variance with those of other judges,

(1) Where authorities agree the text is assured.
(2) If authorities differ but slightly, assurance is little shaken.
(3) " If the reading of the ancient authorities in general is unanimous, there can be little doubt it should be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies ; for it is most improbable that the independent testimonies of early manuscripts, versions and Fathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless."
(4) A reading found in versions alone can claim but little authority.
(5) A reading found in patristic citations alone is of still less authority.
(6) Where authorities are divided, "other things being equal," these rules must guide.
(a) An early citation, in express terms, may alone be decisive. In cases where decision cannot be thus assured, the following guides may be successively sought and trusted;
(b) if one of two readings accords with a parallel passage ;
(c) if one gives an amplification found elsewhere ;
(d) if one of two seems to avoid a difficulty ;
(e) if one reading has been copied by others ;
(f) if well-known principles of variation can be applied.
(7) When certainty is unattainable, the doubtful passage should be retained, but put in brackets.
(8) When it is certain that a reading was received in the second or third century, this outweighs all later authorities.

(9) Readings sustained by the larger number of authorities may be unsustained by the superior authorities.

These rules of Tregelles call for attention less in their statement than in their application.

Rule 3 is at variance with Poole and Hug when the oldest existing Greek manuscripts, seen to be the Egyptian uncials never trusted by the Greeks themselves, are accepted as supreme authority.

Under rule 6, item (a), such students of the early Christian writers as Poole and Hug think they have found in early Christian writers express quotations from the New Testament records which would on Tregelles' principle set aside the authority of the Egyptian uncials.

As to rule 6, item (e), it should be carefully observed that while Tregelles applies it to hundreds of cursive manuscripts, which he regards as copied one from another, he forgets to apply it to the Egyptian uncials ; all of which Hug finds to be but copies of a class.

Under rule 8 the argument of Poole and Hug, based on the acceptance " from time immemorial " of the "koine ekdosis," or "common text," by the Greek as well as the combined Oriental and Western Churches, is a testimony which the Egyptian uncials have never been supposed to countervail ; and these testimonies show that the reading of the second and third century is preserved in that "common text."

As to rule 9, where the reference to the numberless "cursive" Greek manuscripts is apparent, this fact is specially to be noted. Hug, as before mentioned, specially describes 6 only ; beginning with the commonly recognized MS #1 and ending with #579.

Tregelles cites in his rules only MSS 1, 33, 69; whose original text, though oft corrected, as his use of them shows, seems to sustain his view of the Egyptian uncials as authoritative.

As to cursive MSS 1, the only cursive manuscript cited in common by Hug and Tregelles, Hug traces its history; showing that the copy was made in the time of Leo V. ; who, though he ruled as Pope only a few months, had special influence at the close of the 9th and at the beginning of the 10th century. Of its text, conformed manifestly to the spirit of the age.

Hug says: "The text of the Gospels is very different from the text of the rest of the manuscript." - but Tregelles states as to it: "A manuscript in the Library at Basle, containing all the N. Test, but the Apocalypse; but only of importance in the text of the Gospels. Of the 10th century: examined by many, and collated independently by Tregelles and Roth ; when these collations disagree 1-T or 1-R indicates the respective collators."

As to the text to which this cursive manuscript was originally conformed, Hug states that in "the Gospels" it followed the "koine ekdosis." Its use by Tregelles is illustrated on Matt. 18:11 ; where it is indicated that the statement, "For the Son of man is come to save the lost," is omitted from the original text of this cursive MS, but was afterwards inserted by a 2nd corrector of the MS. The fact that Tregelles differed from Roth in his reading of the manuscript as a collator shows how liable to err the modern examiner as well as the original copyist may prove.

The setting aside by Tregelles of the authority of the hundreds of cursive manuscripts trusted as reliable by the world of Christian scholars in the past, the special devotion of such a mind as that of Tregelles to three selected copies regarded by him as supporting the Egyptian uncials, and the fact that the judgment of Hug as to the actual character of that special cursive MS differs so materially from that of Tregelles — these facts justify certainly the doubt expressed by the Bishop of St. Andrews as to the actual "consensus of scholarship" which now demands the omission of this and other passages."

mr.scrivener