Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
For the members of this Society one need not belabour the significance of Origen's NT quotations both for the history of the NT text in general as well as for the local texts of Alexandria and Caesarea in particular. Indeed his erudition, prolific writings and long residence both in Alexandria and Caesarea combine to give him a unique place in the history of this discipline.
[1] Bardy, G., ‘Les citations bibliques d'Origene dans le De principiis’, RevBib 16 (1919), 106–35.Google Scholar
[2] Kenyon, F. G., The Text of the Greek Bible (London: Duckworth, 1937), PP. 209–10.Google Scholar
[3] For the support of these judgements see especially my Papyrus Bodmer II (P66): Its Textual Relationships and Scribal Characteristics (SD 34; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1968)Google Scholar and ‘P75, P66 and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria’, New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. Longenecker, R. N. and Tenney, M. C.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 19–45.Google Scholar
In the seminar there was some objection, especially from Klaus Junack of Münster, to any use of the term ‘mixed’. To the members of the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung the use of this term is to raise the spectre of a day now past. They argue, correctly I think, that for the early evidence we should use terms that denominate kinds (or attitudes) of textual transmission. But as a term for noting textual relationships among contemporary evidence like P66 and P75, ‘mixture’ still seems to have some usefulness. Especially is this so of P66, which is basically a relative of P75 (a second or third cousin), but has several readings in agreement with other early non-Egyptian evidence (in this case, Old Latin) as well as readings of its own of a decidedly secondary character.
[4] The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford, 1968), p. 87.Google Scholar
[5] See Kim, K. W., ‘Origen's Text of John in His On Prayer, Commentary on Matthew, and Against Celsus’, JTS n.s. 1 (1950), 74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fee, G. D., ‘The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations’, Biblica 52 (1971), 357–94Google Scholar; and idem., ‘The Text of John and Mark in the Writings of Chrysostom’, NTS 26 (1979/80), 525–47.
[6] Entitled ‘New Testament Textual Criticism: Today's Agenda and Tomorrow's Tasks, III. The Patristic Quotations of the New Testament’.
[7] See Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek [Vol. 2] Introduction Appendix (London: Macmillan, 1881), pp. 112–15.Google Scholar
[8] The Four Gospels (rev. ed.; London: Macmillan, 1930), pp. 91–102.Google Scholar
[9] ‘The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark’, HTR 21 (1928), 259–77.Google Scholar
[10] Ibid., p. 270.
[11] Ibid., p. 277.
[12] I had occasion recently to verify this by a different methodology. See ‘A Critique of W. N. Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text’, Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1979), 421–2.Google Scholar
[13] ‘The Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels in Origen's Exhortation to Martyrdom’, JTS 36 (1935), 60–5.Google Scholar
[14] ‘The Text of the Fourth Gospel Used by Origen in his Commentary on John’, JTS 37 (1936), 146–55.Google Scholar
[15] ‘The Text of St Matthew Used by Origen in His Commentary on St. Matthew’, JTS 38 (1937), 60–4.Google Scholar
[16] ‘The Text of the Fourth Gospel’, p. 153, n. 4.Google Scholar
[17] See my ‘Text of John and Mark in Chrysostom’, p. 537, n. 34: ‘Tasker's errors are the result of several methodological failures. For example: (1) although the commentary here is on John 11, he makes no distinction between these citations and others; (2) at least 5 of his variants (including 3 of the 4 distinctively “Caesarean” readings) are simply incorrectly listed; while another (om. ούν 18. 28) is the kind of random variant that can never be used, since particles and conjunctions - especially their omission in a Father's citation - are the least certain elements in patristic evidence; (3) he has 12 variants from the TR listed for 11. 39–57, only 8 of which are correct, but he has neglected 7 others; (4) of the 15 variants from the TR in this section of John Origen agrees with the Egyptian text in every case, 14 of which are in common with B, while only 6 of them are also supported by the “Caesarean” MSS; (5) Codex Θjoins other “Caesareans” in 9 distinctive variants for this-section, not one of which is read by Origen.
As elsewhere Origen's text of John in Book XXVIII is thoroughly Egyptian, without a shred of influence from the so-called Caesarean MSS.’
[18] Ibid., pp. 526–37.
[19] See my ‘Text of John in Origen’, p. 370; cf. Kim, K. W., ‘Origen's Text of John’, p. 82–3.Google Scholar
[20] ‘The Matthean Text of Origen in His Commentary on Matthew’, JBL 68 (1949), 125–39.Google Scholar
[21] ‘Origen's Text of Matthew in His Against Celsus’, JTS 4 (1953), 42–9.Google Scholar
[22] See note 5.
[23] Ibid., p. 82.
[24] See n. 5.
[25] ‘P75, P66, and Origen’ [see n. 3].
