Dan Batovici, «Eriugena’s Greek Variant Readings of the Fourth Gospel.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 26 (2013) 69-86 page 81

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 81/86
«
‹
81
82
83
84
85
86
›

Eriugena’s Greek Variant Readings of the Fourth Gospel 81 whom I said,’ or, as is in the Greek, ‘of whom I was speaking,’ which is far more significant. The first variant Eriugena mentions seems to be the equivalent of κέκραγεν, the reading of most Greek manuscripts. With regard to the second Greek reading Eriugena mentions here, dicebam, Nestle notes that in Tischendorf’s apparatus, the only appearance of the variant ἔλεγον for εἶπον is that of the corrector of Ephraemi rescriptus; the same goes for the more recent CNTTS apparatus. Nestle further questions whether there is any connexion between 04-C2 and Eriugena, keeping open the possibility, however, that the Latin author might have considered εἶπον as imperfect. For his part, Jeauneau scrutinizes Eriugena’s Latin translation of the Greek aorist forms found in Pseudo-Areopagitus’ corpus. Jeauneau’s conclusion is that Eriugena rather consistently translates second aorists, particularly those ended in –ον, by a Latin imperfect.36 It would seem then that if the quoted text points to any variant at all for Jn 1:15, that would be ὃν εἶπον, since Eriugena’s note of dicebam appears to be due to his idiosyncrasies as a translator from Greek. The ὃν εἶπον reading has wide support elsewhere, and is the text of NA28. Jn 1:18 Θεὸν] οὐδεὶς [ἑώρακεν πώποτε Comm. I. xxv. Devm nemo vidit vnqvam. [...] Quod enim in latino codice scriptum devm nemo vidit, in graeco devm nvllvs vidit: ΟΥΔΕΙC quip- pe et ‘nemo’ et ‘nullus’ interpretatur. ‘No one has ever seen God.’ [...] In the Latin codex is written ‘No one has seen God,’ yet in the Greek one there is ‘None has seen God,’ for οὐδεὶς means both ‘no one’ and ‘none.’ Eriugena explicitly mentions οὐδεὶς in Jn 1:18. This reading has wide support elsewhere, and is the text of NA28. Jn 1:23 ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ] ἐρήμῳ Comm. I. xxvii. [...] Ego svm vox clamantis in deserto. [...] Et hoc grae- co nomine, quod est ΕΡΗΜΟC, luce clarius significatur. ΕΡΗΜΙΑ quippe interpretatur remotio et excelsitudo, quod omnino diuinae conuenit naturae. ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert.’ And the Greek noun, ἔρημος, is more clear than light. For ἐρημία means removal and eleva- tion, which are entirely fit for the divine nature. 36 Jeauneau, SC 180, 104-105, n. 2.