Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:10:03.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manuscripts Cited by Stephanus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2009

J. K. Elliott
J. K. Elliott
Affiliation:
Department of Theology, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The third edition of Stephanus' Greek New Testament (ΤΗC ΚΑΙΝΗC ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗC ΑΠΑΝΤΑ: Paris, 1550), known as the editio regia, is held in high regard in English Protestantism. It was this text which underlay the English translation (by W. Whittingham and others) published in Geneva in 1557 that greatly influenced the Geneva Bible published three years later. In effect, Stephanus' edition was the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament for over three hundred years.

Keywords

Textual CriticismGreek manuscriptsStephanus
Type
Short Study
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 390 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

1 Pace Metzger, Bruce M. and Ehrman, Bart D., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 4th ed. 2005) 150Google Scholar, which says fourteen manuscripts were cited.

2 α´ denotes the Complutensian Polyglot, apparently printed in 1514 (i.e. before Erasmus' edition) but published only eight years later as vol. V of the complete Polyglot. The edition was reprinted several times between 1522 and 1550: it is not known which printing was used by Stephanus.

3 Gregory's, C. R. earlier identifications (Prolegomena to Constantinius Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 8th ed. 1894] 213Google Scholar [hereafter Gregory 1894]), although correct, use the earlier (Wettstein-)Tischendorf numbering. Likewise, von Soden's, Hermann Freiherr translation of Stephanus' numbers (in his Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments [Berlin: Glaue, 1902] 1.1, 81)Google Scholar is also correct but refers only to his own, distinctive numbering.

4 There is some question whether ιβ´ and ιδ´ were correctly identified. Gregory 1894, 460, says that 9e is ‘possibly’ ιβ´ and on p. 494 that 120e ‘seems to be’ ιδ´. Scrivener, F. H. A., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (ed. Miller, Edward; London: Bell, 4th ed. 1984)Google Scholar 1.192, 211 parallels Gregory's comments (as is often the case with his comments on individual manuscripts).

5 That identification, queried by Wettstein, is now confidently made, thanks in large measure to Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, 1.124–5 n. 3. The agraphon about the man working on the Sabbath, found only in D 05, is printed in the inner margin and is signalled after Luke 6.5.

6 82 apr is ‘unbekannt’ according to Gregory 1908, 51.

7 Scrivener, Frederick H., Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1864) viiiGoogle Scholar.

8 For 567 Gregory 1908, 68 has ‘a p: früher a 120 p 141’. Amphoux, C.-B. and Vaganay, Léon, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991) 132Google Scholar claim that Stephanus' step-father, Simon de Colines, had collated manuscript 119e (= Paris: Bibl. nat. de France gr 85) as well as 120 (Stephanus' ιδ´).

9 Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, 1.284.

10 Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, 1.191–2.

11 See also the German form of the manuscript listings in Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900) 268Google Scholar

12 Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, 1.191–2 n. 1.

13 Wettstein, J. J., Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci… (Amsterdam: Wettstein and Smith, 1730) 1.36–8Google Scholar. He was particularly scathing about Beza's editorial methods.

14 Krans, Jan, Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament = New Testament Tools and Studies (NTTS) 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 227–8 n. 62Google Scholar. Appendix II to his book (pp. 337–8) lists the manuscripts used in Stephanus' edition. His ζ´ is shown as 8e 50a 8p and as Paris, Bibl. Nat. de France gr 49 even though this is only a Gospel manuscript!

15 Krans, Beyond What is Written, 213.

16 See Krans, Beyond What is Written, 213–6.