Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:14:34.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Project to establish a Critical Apparatus to Luke's Gospel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. K. Elliott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A magisterial and highly critical review by T. W. Manson of S. C. E. Legg's edition of Matthew in the J.T.S. of 1942 became a significant factor in causing the proposed series of critical apparatuses that was intended to cover the entire New Testament to be abandoned after only two volumes had been issued. Legg's edition of Mark had appeared in 1935, Matthew was the second volume to appear: the third volume (on Luke) was prepared but was not accepted for publication largely as a result of Manson's article.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1983 , pp. 531 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

NOTES

[1] Novum Testamentum Graece secundum Matthaeum (Oxford, 1940).Google Scholar

[2] J.T.S. 43 (1942), pp. 83–92.Google Scholar Cf. also Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘The Oxford Greek New Testament’, J.T.S. 43 (1942) pp. 30–4.Google Scholar

[3] A record of that meeting may be seen in Dobschütz, E. von, ‘Neutestamentlertagung zu Breslau am 4. und 5. Oktober 1926’, Z.N.W. 25 (1926), pp. 315–9.Google Scholar

[4] The method is described in Colwell, E. C. with Sparks, I. A., Wisse, F., McReynolds, P. R., ‘The International Greek New Testament Project: A Status Report’, J.B.L. 87 (1968), pp. 187–97.Google Scholar Cf. also Epp, E. J., ‘The Claremont Profile Method for Grouping New Testament Minuscule Manuscripts’ in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament (Utah, 1967), pp. 27–38Google Scholar (= Studies and Documents 29), and also Wisse, F. and McReynolds, P., ‘Family E and the Profile Method’, Biblica 51 (1970), pp. 67–75.Google Scholar This method is criticized in Richards, W. L., ‘An Examination of the Claremont Profile Method in the Gospel of Luke: A Study in Text-Critical Methodology’, N.T.S. 27 (1981), pp. 52–63Google Scholar; and id. ‘A Critique of a New Testament Text-Critical Methodology – The Claremont Profile Method’, J.B.L. 96 (1977), pp. 555–66. The Claremont profile method has been defended by F. Wisse in a monograph soon to be published in the series Studies and Documents. As far as the apparatus to Luke is concerned the Claremont Profile Method was applied to 1348 manuscripts of Luke including 816 manuscripts taken from microfilms held at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Miinster. This total is about 75% of all known cursives containing this gospel.Google Scholar

[5] Aland, K., ‘Bemerkungen zu Probeseiten einer grossen kritischen Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments’, N.T.S. 13 (1965–1966), pp. 176–85.Google Scholar This article was enlarged and corrected in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (Berlin, 1967), pp. 81–90 (= Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 2). Aland's criticisms are answered by Suggs, J., ‘Greek Patristic Evidence: The International Project for a New Apparatus’ in La Bible et les Pères, ed. Benoit, A. and Prigent, P. (Paris, 1971), pp. 197–217 esp. pp. 205 f.Google Scholar

[6] Parvis, M. M., ‘The International Project to Establish a New Critical Apparatus of the Greek New Testament’, Crozer Quarterly 27 (1950), pp. 301–8.Google Scholar

[7] Robinson, J. M., ‘International Greek New Testament Project’, N.T.S. 16 (1969–1970), pp. 180–3Google Scholar; Metzger, B. M., ‘Report of Progress of the American Section of the International Greek New Testament Project’, N.T.S. 1 (1955–1956), pp. 222 f., and in the annual reports of the Institute for Christianity and Antiquity in Claremont, California, e.g. Bulletin number 3 (1972), pp. 1–3 and number 6 (1973), pp. 1–4. These reports give details about the progress of the work, the personnel involved and the problems encountered.Google Scholar

[8] Op. cit., p. 308.

[9] Duplacy, J., ‘Une Tâche Importante en Difficulté: L'Edition du Nouveau Testament Grec’, N.T.S. 14 (1967–1968), pp. 457–68.Google Scholar

[10] Metzger, B. M., The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[11] Such as those discussed by Metzger, B. M. in ‘St Jerome's Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New Testament’ in Text and Interpretation ed. Best, E. and Wilson, R. McL. (Cambridge, 1979Google Scholar) and in ‘Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts’ reprinted most recently in Metzger, B. M., Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (Leiden, 1968), pp. 88–103.Google Scholar