FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178  
179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   >>   >|  
o full that 'they were sinking' ([Greek: hoste bythizesthai auta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: ede] (were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'): while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_.' These attempts to improve upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office. The truth is, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the Bohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means 'were beginning to sink.' There is no need of further qualifying the expression by the insertion with Eusebius[437] of any additional word. I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea,' is to be accounted for in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou] (or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios]) which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or 'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus' ([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some _Beraean_ that the gloss originated,--and what more likely?--it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have confused the _p_ and _b_ sounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader to consider,--If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: Sopatros Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word? FOOTNOTES: [353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52. [354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80. [355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis] in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, lin
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178  
179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Pyrrhus
 

Bohairic

 

suspect

 
Traditional
 
critic
 
Scripture
 

Pyrrou

 

Peshitto

 

copies

 

sinking


bythizesthai
 
Beroiaios
 

letter

 

confirms

 

unimportant

 

inhabitants

 

Macedonia

 

matter

 

carefully

 

called


entire
 

Beraean

 

interesting

 
originated
 

confused

 
conjecture
 
guarded
 

sounds

 

circumstance

 

quotations


obtained

 

rhesis

 
portion
 
Monitum
 

Catena

 
Mazarine
 

Library

 

present

 

Sopatros

 

reader


invite

 

record

 
FOOTNOTES
 

Origen

 
truthfulness
 
Evangelist
 

betray

 

utterly

 
laudable
 

attempts