To my knowledge there has been no thoroughgoing eclectic study of the text of any New Testament book, although the principles of eclectic textual criticism have been applied to individual readings. This thesis attempts to provide a study of all the known variant readings in the Greek text of the Pastoral Epistles. To this end, a full critical apparatus has been compiled and a discussion on each variant reading is provided with the object of establishing the original text and of explaining how variants arose. The theory, on which these discussions are based is found in an introductory chapter. This introduction begins by arguing that previous methods of textual criticism based largely on the "cult of the best manuscript" are untenable and unreliable nowadays- due partly to the growing realisation that no one manuscript or group of manuscripts contains the original text. Many scholars realise that the original reading may be found in any given manuscript. The implication of this is of course that the peculiar readings of every manuscript must (ultimately) be examined. The principles for such an eclectic study then follow. These emphasise the need for an awareness of how scribes worked and how palaeography often caused variation in a text. It is also shown how Atticism was sometimes responsible for variant readings. This section of the Introduction also indicates how scribes often made deliberate alterations in a text they were copying in order to avoid a theological or grammatical expression they found offensive. It is also argued in this section how an awareness of the author's style can often enable the textual critic to reestablish the original text. The Introduction closes with a discussion of the positive advantages of the eclectic method of textual criticism. Among these advantages are (l) that the original text is established independently of purely documentary evidence, (2) that a full commentary on the critical apparatus is written, and (3) that the behaviour and reliability of manuscripts can be seen. There then follows a discussion on all the variant readings in "I Timothy","II Timothy" and "Titus". The variants are arranged in verse order with the exception of the variants involving δε, Καϲ and the Divine Names, which are discussed for convenience in Appendices. Each page of variants is headed by a critical apparatus showing Greek, Versional and Patristic evidence. Beneath each apparatus appears a discussion on the variant: this discussion is based on the principles outlined in the introductory chapter, and without regard to the "weight" of the manuscript support. In Appendix I the author's use of the Divine Names ΙϹ ΧϹ, ΚϹ and ΘϹ is established and a discussion on the variants involving these titles follows. It is, for instance, argued that strict grammatical regulations governed the author in his use of arthrous or anarthrous ΚϹ and ΘϹ, and in the order of writing ΙϹ ΧϹ. Appendix II contains the discussion of variants involving the addition and omission of Και. It is argued that many instances of are original, but that scribes tended to reduce the frequent use of Και, which characterises the style both of the author of the Pastorals and of Koine Greek. Appendix III deals with the variants omitting or adding δε. It is found that many instances of δε are secondary, and have been added by scribes to avoid asyndeton. Because the critical apparatus in this thesis contains a larger number of manuscripts than any previous critical apparatus of the Pastoral Epistles, many of the statements made in Wordsworth and White's apparatus to the N. T. in Latin are inaccurate. Appendix IV lists such inaccuracies and in particular shows how many variants known to Wordsworth and White in only Latin manuscripts, are now known to have Greek support. Appendix V is concerned with the work of Westcott and Hort. These two scholars championed the merits of the readings of the manuscripts S and B for their New Testament text. This appendix begins with a list of readings followed by Westcott and Hort in the Pastorals. A commentary on the list shows that in the absence of B for the Pastorals, Westcott and Hort tended to follow the readings of SAC, but that the readings of other manuscripts were sometimes heeded. A statistical survey concludes this appendix and shows the extent to which Westcott and Hort used S, A or C. The final two appendices are concerned with the results of the thesis. First, in Appendix VT, an attempt is made to show how the text of the Pastoral Epistles resulting from a purely eclectic treatment of the variants differs from existing printed editions of these epistles. To this end, the readings I accept as original on the basis of the discussions in the main body of the thesis are collated against the readings of the Textus Receptus, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tegelles, Nestlé and Westcott and Hort. The readings, which have not appeared in any printed edition, are then listed together with their manuscript support. There are about 65 such readings, most of them supported by by several manuscripts - only a few are supported by a few or late witnesses: only three readings are accepted without Greek support. Some of the readings concern word-order, others orthography, but in general most are of a grammatical or syntactical nature, and thus the resulting text differs but little from printed editions. Perhaps the most significant reading is the acceptance of νδρωπινοϛ 1 Tim. 1:15 and 3:1 sncL the acceptance of the longer reading at Titus 2:7. Very occasionally the discussion on variants does not yield a confident conclusion, and these readings are listed separately in Appendix VI. The basic contention in the Introduction is that no confidence can be placed in the exclusive reliability of any one manuscript or manuscript grouping. This led to the discussion on variants based on principles, which were not purely documentary. Appendix VII shows the justification of that basic contention. The main uncial manuscripts and the bulk of the minuscules are examined in this appendix, and it is shown how often and where they preserve the correct reading, and how often they preserve the wrong reading. Where they preserve the original text, the allegiences of the manuscript axe noted. It is concluded that, in general, it is impossible to establish groupings of manuscripts. The final assessment is (l) that no one manuscript preserves the monopoly of truth, (2) that, because of their capriciousness, certain manuscripts (such as S A C) can not be relied on automatically, and (3) that any one manuscript (however untrustworthy basically) may preserve the original reading.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:580736 |
| Date | January 1967 |
| Creators | Elliott, James Keith |
| Publisher | University of Oxford |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1a50b4bf-b587-4a41-a4ac-e35c5c0989e3 |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds