Complutensian Polyglot?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Jul 14, 2010.

  1. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is my understanding that in addition to Erasmus' Greek text, there was another text named the "Complutensian Polyglot". Why does it not get more consideration as a NT Greek resource? I would surmise due to a lack of access but what say ye scholars?

    Also if anyone knows, just how much variance is there between the TR and CP?
     
  2. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although the first printed GNT, it wasn't the first one published, which distinction of course goes to Erasmus. I think it was so rare (only 600 copies ever existed), expensive, and huge (6 large volumes), that Erasmus' text with just the NT and reprinted many times in 5 different editions simply took the day. Its text is not much different than Erasmus'. Scrivener mentioned 2780 differences between the Complutensian GNT and the Elzevir GNT of 1624 (which very closely resembles Erasmus' text), but he said that the majority of 1931 of those differences were untranslatable (i.e., orthographic). Perhaps the most notable thing for KJVO advocates is that Erasmus' edition of 1516 did not include 1 John 5:7-8, whereas the Complutensian Polyglot edition did.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jonathan,

    Thanks for that information. Just one thing- my understanding was that the CP and the TR were pretty much contemporary- the CP was published from 1514-1517 according to some sources.

    The rarity and cost would explain the lack of use.

    Thanks again.
     
  4. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right that the two editions were contemporary, but Erasmus' editions far exceeded the Complutensian Polyglot in terms of availability and affordability. The CP's GNT/Latin NT parallel section was printed in 1514, but since the editors/designers wished to wait until the final product (i.e., the entire OT, NT, apocrypha, etc.) was finished before publishing, the effect was that the CP wasn't published until 1522. Erasmus' GNT/Latin NT parallel edition, on the other hand, was printed and published in 1516. His second edition was 1519, third edition 1522 (and this was the edition that included the trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8, mainly because of his controversy with Stunica who was the chief editor of the Complutensian Polyglot), fourth edition 1527, and his fifth edition was in 1535 before he died in 1536.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have often heard that Erasmus said that he would include the 1 John passage if someone could produce a manuscript that had it. Is Stunica the one who provided the manuscript evidence that convinced Erasmus to include it?

    This is fascinating stuff!
     
  6. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that story is urban legend. However, I think it's more like John 7:53-8:11 and today's modern versions. The absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Erasmus' first two editions was creating such a controversy that Erasmus included it beginning with his 3rd edition in order to deflect the primary attack against his edition of the NT. His decision appears to have achieved his desired result even if it was not scholarly or ethical.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Erasmus' purported promise has been repeated by both TR adherents and CT advocates, names that include Scrivener, Kenyon, Nestle and Metzger.

    Metzger retracted his version of the story after reading research by H.J. de Jonge, a Dutch Erasmian scholar who pointed out that the story was not even mentioned before the 19th century. According to de Jonge, the story may have arisen from a misunderstanding of Erasmus' writings on the Comma in disputes with other scholars. The promise, de Jonge says, is nowhere to be found in Erasmus' writings, just as there is no hint that Erasmus suspected the Codex Brittanicus was fabricated for the purpose.

    De Jonge's monograph (in English) is at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/retrieve/1699/279_050.pdf
     

Share This Page

Loading...