The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. XVII (Vol. VII of new series) (1897) included an article, "The Decision of the Holy Office on the Comma Joanneum," by "The Right Rev." Thomas Jos. Lamy, D.D., University of Louvain, Belgium, which runs for over 30 pages starting from p. 449.
The subject of the Complutensian and its alleged sources comes up a few times:
"Within a few years, the Polyglotta Complutensis, the publication of which had been retarded a long time, finally appeared. It contained a Greek text of the New Testament printed before that followed by Erasmus, and there was the celebrated verse.¹
FN1 Most likely after the Codex Rhodiensis of which Stunica speaks." (p. 452)
"And previous to that, Lopez Stunica had called Erasmus' attention to the Codex Rhodiensis, which likewise had the verse." (p. 477)
"But two other codices are cited for it : the Codex Rhodiensis of Stunica, and the Codex Britannicus of Erasmus, which by some is held to be the Codex Monfortianus of Dublin." (p. 480)
As we have seen, however, Stunica does not say that the Rhodian codex has the reading of the CP, but instead says that the Greek is corrupt (which is not how he describes the Greek when citing the Rhodian codex). Of course, Lamy himself could not tell anyone where the Rhodian codex was, much less could he produce any collation of its various readings.
To try to buttress the Complutensian text, he states:
The Codex Ravianus which is in the Library of Berlin, has the verse in the same terms as the Editio Complutensis. Tischendorf claims that it belongs to the seventeenth century and Martin declares it to be only a copy of the Editio Complutensis; but the matter remains doubtful despite the assertions of Wetstein, of Griesbach, of Tapelbaum and of Martin." (p. 476)
The Codex Ravianus has indeed been demonstrated to be a copy of the Complutensian Polyglot (see the discussion of manuscript 110 here, for example). It is not included in the GA list of NT manuscripts for that reason.
As for the Rhodian Codex, its identity remains a mystery, despite the efforts of some great scholars to track it down (see the discussion in Bentley, J. H. (1980). NEW LIGHT ON THE EDITING OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN NEW TESTAMENT. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 42(1), 145–156.)
Of particular interest to my ongoing discussion with some pro-CJ folks, Bentley's article notes that the then-recently analyzed annotations did not cover 1 John 5:7-8, alone among the four major notes in the Complutensian Polyglot.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.