Dan Batovici, «Eriugena’s Greek Variant Readings of the Fourth Gospel.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 26 (2013) 69-86 page 77

Dan Batovici, «Eriugena’s Greek Variant Readings of the Fourth Gospel.», Vol. 26 (2013) 69-86

In a 1912 note of less than two pages, E. Nestle presented a number of instances where Eriugena mentions several readings of the Greek text of the Gospel of John which did not survive in our manuscripts and which where not mentioned by Souter or Tischendorf. He stressed that such an example ‘shews that even so late an author deserves the attention of an editor of the Greek New Testament’ (596), before asking where these would fit in the manuscript tradition of John. This article will follow Nestle’s suggestion and re-examine the variant readings offered by Eriugena – all explicit quotations – in light of the post-1912 developments in textual scholarship on both the Greek text of John and on Eriugena’s works devoted to the Fourth Gospel.

TAGS

Page 77/86
‹
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
›

Eriugena’s Greek Variant Readings of the Fourth Gospel 77 includes detailed Patristic evidence. Surely, this is still subject to all the methodological limits of using the patristic evidence, but, as far as the latter goes, this variant should possibly be taken into account. Jn 1:18 μονογενὴς θεὸς] ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς [ἐκεῖνος μονογενὴς θεὸς] ὁ ὢν εἰς τοῖς κόλποῖς τοῦ πατρὸς [ἐκεῖνος Comm. I. xxvi. Vnigenitvs filivs, qvi est in sinv patris. Vel, ut in graeco scribitur: Qvi est in sinvm patris, uel in sinibvs patris. In quibusdam codicibus graecorum singulariter sinus patris dicitur, in quibusdam pluraliter, quasi sinus multos pater habeat.24 ‘The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.’ Or, as is written in the Greek: either ‘Which is in the bosom of the Father,’ or ‘in the bosoms of the Father.’ In some Greek codices the noun is in the singular, ‘bosom of the Father,’ in others it is in the plural, as if the Father had many bosoms. For this verse, Eriugena mentions therefore two different Greek variants, reported as found in Greek manuscripts; their presentation side by side is consistent with his exegetical method. Consequently, the variants are then assigned extensive, mainly allegorical, exegeses. The Greek variants to which Eriugena seems to point are the expected accusative singular εἰς τὸν κόλπον and the perhaps less expected ablative plural ἐν τοῖς κόλποις.25 The first reading has wide support elsewhere, and is the text of NA28. Nestle suggests that the latter variant could have resulted from a confusion with Lk 16:22 and 23.26 While this is not impossible, it is highly more likely that Eriugena simply witnesses a variant which occurs in the Greek Patristic authors whom he knew and translated in Latin, for instance Gregory of Nyssa.27 The variant also appears in the 565 minuscule manuscript of the 9th century, now in St. Petersburg. These witnesses are mentioned in the apparatus of UBSBTJ;28 565 is also listed with this variant in the CNTTS apparatus. Eriugena may well join them on the list of witnesses supporting the plural reading.29 The variant is 24 Jeauneau, CCCM 166, 56. 25 Jeauneau, SC 180, 127, n. 1. 26 Nesle, Eriugena, 596. 27 On Gregory’s reading see J.A. Brooks, NT of Gregory of Nyssa, 109. 28 The United Bible Societies Byzantine Text of John (UBSBTJ), with an impressive online critical apparatus, is available at www.iohannes.com/byzantine/index.html. 29 As Jeauneau points out (SC 180, 127, n. 1, and CCCM 166, 56), G.W.F. Lampe, A Greek Patristic Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 766, offers a list of patristic occurrences of the plural in the context of Jn. 1:18.