Baljon (1898) on PA: State of Art and state of confusion

J.M.S. Baljon

In 1898, J. M. S. Baljon attempted to give the public a corrected, lean and mean version of Tischendorf's epic 8th edition Greek NT.  Tischendorf's original major critical edition was under-printed and overly expensive, as well as being massively cluttered with patristic citations which, unfortunately as Tregelles had shown, were simply carried over from previous collators and so were both unreliable and useless (for accurate patristic citations Tregelles' GNT is preferred).
Baljon's solution was to drop the bulk of the superfluous notes and present the readings of the main Uncial MSS and important minuscules and versions.

Interestingly, Baljon's approach to the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) reflects both the state of the art, and the state of confusion surrounding the passage at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries.

Facsimiles of the relevant pages of Baljon's Greek New Testament regarding the PA can be found here: Baljon on the PA  < - - click here.

"The edition of J. M. S. BALJON is in the main an abridgment of Tischendorf's octava maior. He avails himself, however, of later discoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest for the Gospels, and the Syriac version published by Gwynn for the Apocalypse. In Acts, Blass's restoration of the so-called Forma Romana is regularly indicated. No other edition, for one thing, shows more conveniently where recent scholars recognize glosses or other interpolations, or propose transpositions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far, therefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess an edition with a more copious critical apparatus. But even Baljon's New Testament fails to realize the ideal of a practical edition."

In Baljon we see a repeat of earlier editors' approach to the textual problem (such as that of Tregelles, Wordsworth,  and Tischendorf): He simply presents a recap of the discussions in almost impenetrable Latin as a three-page footnote, then presents the two best attested textual versions of the passage, (1) that of the TR (Traditional Byzantine text), and (2) that of Codex Bezae (4th cent. bilingual MS D/d).
 His detailed apparatus for the text itself is however helpful, and represents a clearer but earlier precursor to the apparatus of von Soden (1913), who later extensively collated the Byzantine MSS themselves in this passage.  von Soden's apparatus, while providing a more detailed view of the Byzantine text-type, suffers from a complex and cumbersome system of notation which is most difficult to interpret.

mr.scrivener

J. Borland on John 8:6 (μη προσποιουμενος)

The following is taken from Jonathan's post on Textual Criticism Yahoo Groups (Willker's group):

 

Re: [textualcriticism] John 8:6 - as though he heard them not - Beza Greek editions and possible annotation ? 

(Dec 26 , 2010, Msg #6199)

Dear List,

The internal character of the expression MH PROSPOIOUMENOS in most (3/4 [?]) of the manuscripts that contain John 7:53-8:11 suggests that it occupied a place in the earliest strands of the tradition. Note that this opinion opposes that of von Soden who maintains that the m1-m2-m3 groups are earliest, although in this case many manuscripts of the m1 group actually contain the expression.
The difficulty of determining the expression's meaning could have motivated its removal in Greek witnesses, and such expressions typically bothered translators. For example, how should the construction be expressed in Latin? One could simply use _dissimulans_, but still it is unclear: does Jesus write "concealing" what he was writing, or did he write while "ignoring" them, or something else? One could try to interpret the meaning, and depending on the result end up with various options, just two of which are: _simulans se eos non audivisse_ "pretending that he did not hear them," or, causally, _cum eos non audivisset_ "because he did not hear them." Note that the last possibility would allow for an accidental omission of the expression in Latin by way of homeoarchton error (cum...cum), but this theoretical possibility is far less likely than the alternative, namely, that the expression was removed either because it was difficult to understand or because it was difficult to imagine Jesus dissembling or pretending or deceiving, etc.
In my Master's thesis on the Old Latin tradition of John 7:53-8:11 I briefly discuss several places where early Greek witnesses may depend on the Latin tradition based on transcriptional errors that occur in Latin but not in Greek. If further investigation confirms such Greek dependence on the very early and influential Old Latin tradition, it is possible to suggest that the absence of the expression MH PROSPOIOUMENOS in the influential Latin tradition contributed to its absence in a number of manuscripts of the Greek tradition.

Jonathan C. Borland

Steven Avery on John 8:6

The following is taken from the Textual Criticism Group run by W. Willker:

"Hi Folks,

This variant is not discussed too much because it is embedded within the Pericope Adultera. However it is fascinating for those who accept the Pericope and also in Received Text history. Generally this phrase is in the Greek manuscripts that have the Pericope, not the Latin. (And I have not seen any church writer attestation for the phrase.) A major factor in consideration will be your general perspective on inclusion/omission, however my point here is more historical, which manuscripts and which editions support the phrase, especially in TR editions .. than conceptual.

John 8:6
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down,
and with his finger wrote on the ground,
as though he heard them not.

"as though he heard them not."
mh prospoioumenos - mh prospoioumenos

The Laparola apparatus
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=8:6

This is incomplete, since Scrivener gives the earlier Stephanus editions of 1546 and 1549 as having the phrase. In textual studies, 1550 is the central Stephanus edition, so he changed to omit in 1550, thus the entry. Based on Scrivener the Complutensian has the phrase (following Greek manuscripts against the Vulgate !) and Erasmus does not.

Hodges-Farsted says no, Robinson-Pierpont yes.

One question is the numerical count of Byzantine manuscripts. Interestingly this apparatus does not split the Byz (e.g. Byz-part.) beyond the specified families and mss in the omission section.

Also, my main interest, there is the question of Beza. While Scrivener is indicating that this is not in Beza editions (and Beza's Latin edition online omits the phrase from the Pericope, and that is to be expected) there are notes of interest.

==================

John Gill
"though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions,
but is in five of Beza's copies, and in the Complutensian edition."

Is this based on a Beza annotation ?

==================

Memoirs of the life and works of ... Lancelot Andrewes (1860)
Arthur T. Russell
http://books.google.com/books?id=uyYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA342
John viii.6, mh prospoioumenos, not in Stephens, but in Beza's later editions, as previously in the Complutensian.

This looks to be a direct contradiction to Scrivener.

==================

Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1888)
http://books.google.com/books?id=e9UMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2132
note about "the enumeration given by Scrivener" includes John 7:8

==================

So it would seem that direct referencing to Beza on the verse needs modern checking.
Is it possible for anyone to assist on this research ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY