Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:50:17.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Re-examination of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

R. W. Lyon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus has been the neglected member of the family of great uncials. Photographic facsimiles have been produced of ℵ, A, B, D, and others, but only a sample page or two of the valuable palimpsest is available in textbooks. All the important codices have been studied and collated more than once. But as regards Codex C only Tischendorf has transcribed its text and edited it according to modern standards. In textbooks on textual criticism Codex C has been given—almost without excepdon—less than half the space of any of the other main uncials. To be sure, it is a difficult manuscript to read, and many lacunae exist. Yet because of its age and the quality of its text, as well as the fact that it contains portions of all the sections of the New Testament, every possible detail should be accurately extracted from this once beautiful codex. Owing to this unwarranted neglect of Codex C, especially the fact that no one had tested the accuracy of Tischendorf's work, a new study was undertaken and a new edition is being prepared. The present article will include (1) a brief history Of thern manuscript and its use by textual critics; (2) introductory items on which new light may be shed or on which previous statements need to be corrected; and finally, (3) a list of the more significant errors found in Tischendorf's edition.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , July 1959 , pp. 260 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 260 note 1 Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentu Graecm, Tomus I (Amstelaedami, 1751), p. 27. In his Prolegomena twenty-one years earlier Wettstein assumed, as did everyone else at that time, that Boivin was the discoverer of the lower text.Google Scholar

page 261 note 1 Kuster, Ludolph, Novum Tetamentum Graecum, etc., 2nd ed. (Lipsiae, 1723). On page 4 b of his Praefatio, Kuster states that the citations in the apparatus were received from Boivin. In all likelihood Kuster had not even seen the codex.Google Scholar

page 261 note 2 de Moatfaucon, BernardiPalaeographia Graeca sive de Ortu eS Progressu Literarum Graecarum (Paris, 1708), pp. 213f.Google Scholar

page 261 note 3 Wettstein, J.J., Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci… (Amstelaedami, 1730), p. 12.Google Scholar

page 262 note 1 Cf. Michaelis, John D., Introduction to the New Testament, Eng. trans. vol. II, part i (Cambridge, 1793), p. 260.Google Scholar

page 262 note 2 Griesbach, J. J., Symbolae Criticae, tomus prior (Halae, 1785), p. vi.Google Scholar

page 262 note 3 Lachmann, Carl, ‘Rechenschaft über seine Ausgabe des neuen Testaments’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, III (1830), 831f.Google Scholar

page 262 note 4 Fleck, F. F., ‘Über die Handschrift des rieuen Testamentes gewöhnlich Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus gennant in der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Paris’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, xiv (1841), 126ff.Google Scholar

page 262 note 5 Tischendorf, Constantinus, Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus sive Fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e Codice Graeco Parisiensi Celeberrimo Quinti ut videtur post Christum Seculi (Lipsiae: Bernh. Tauchnitz, 1845). The New Testament was published separately in 1843. In the 1845 edition various printer's errors detected in the former edition are brought to the reader's attention.Google Scholar

page 262 note 6 Tregelles, Samuel P., An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 228. Tregelles refers to his ‘repeated inspection of this passage’.Google Scholar

page 262 note 7 Ceriani, A., ‘Letture della Classe di Lettere e Scienze Storiche e Morali, Critica Biblica’, Reale Instituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere: Rendiconti, Series II, vol. xxi (1888), p. 547.Google Scholar

page 263 note 1 von Soden, Herrnann, Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, 1. Teil (Berlin: Verlag von Arthur Glaue, 1902–1910), pp. 935 f.Google Scholar

page 263 note 2 This statement was not altered in his 1751–2 edition of the Greek New Testament.Google Scholar

page 264 note 1 Sir Kenyon, Frederic G., Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (2nd ed. 1912), P. 71.Google Scholar

page 264 note 2 Traube, Ludwig, Nomina Sacra, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinitchen Philologie des Mittelalters, Zweiter Band (München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907), pp. 70f.Google Scholar

page 264 note 3 A number of times the name is not found because the folios are lost, but in each of the gospels he name is found more than once.Google Scholar

page 265 note 1 The same methodological weakness is also apparent in von Soden's practice of grouping MSS.Google Scholar

page 265 note 2 Kenyon, F. C., The Chester Beatty Papyri, Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus III: Supplement, Pauline Epistles, Text (London: Emery Walker Ltd., 1938), p. 41.Google Scholar

page 266 note 1 Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘The Chester Beatty Papyrus 46 and Hebrews xi. 4’, J. T. S. XLII (1941), 68f.Google Scholar