Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Commentary on the Letters of John:
Zigabenus did not read
in his NT text (early 12th cent.)
the Johannine Comma /

Ερμηνεία των Επιστολών του Ιωάννη:
Το κείμενο της ΚΔ του Ζιγαβηνού (αρχές 12ου αι.)
δεν περιείχε το Ιωάννειο Κόμμα













* Ευθύμιος Ζιγαβηνός / Euthymius Zigabenus,
Ερμηνεία εις τας ΙΔ' επιστολάς του αποστόλου Παύλου και εις τας Ζ' καθολικάς /
Euthymii Zigabeni Commentarius in XIV epistolas Sancti Pauli et VII Catholicas,
επιμ. Νικηφόρος Καλογεράς, 1887,
Τόμος 2, σ. 630.



Ms. Ott.gr.73
,
Euthymii Zigabeni Panoplia dogmatica
(c.14th cent.)












14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks. Could you, please, supply the post with any Info about Zigabenus' commentary upon the 7 canonical epistals? also, what was his comment upon the Johanneum Comma in question?

digiSapientia said...

Dear Sir, you can check there:

* http://books.google.gr/books?id=3qACAAAAQAAJ&dq=Zigabenus'%20commentary%20on%20Epistles&hl=el&pg=PA363#v=onepage&q&f=false

* http://books.google.gr/books?id=qZcHAAAAQAAJ&dq=Zigabenus'%20commentary%20on%20Epistles&hl=el&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

As for the Joh. Comma, Zigabenus does not mention it as a Bible reference neither makes any comment on it.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again. I did read that note of Dr. Lucke before; it is all I could find. Mosheim's account seems to be inaccurate. I asked this only to know whether or not this commentary is agreed to be Zigadenus's. And, excuse me, I meant to ask for the comment upon the words following the comma Johanneum, i.e. 1 jn 5: 8.

Anonymous said...

Sir, Could you give his comment upon verses 7-8, even the latin translation-if there is- only?

digiSapientia said...

Dear Sir, I am not aware whether there is a Latin translation of this work.

For the Greek edition, you can search and find it here:

http://diglib.ypepth.gr/awweb/main.jsp

Then, search for "κωδ εγγράφου" (document code no) 84839 and/or 90898.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, I don't have access to it

Midus Itis said...

FRAUD : HOAX : FAKE
Athenaeum Reviewed Nicephorus Calogeras editions.
Nicephorus KNEW THIS MANUSCRIPT WAS A FRAUD, but decided to publish anyway.
NOT BY EUTHYMIUS.
EUTHYMIUS NEVER WROTE A COMMENTARY ON JOHN's EPISTLES.
MORE DECEPTION FROM THE TEXTUAL CRITIC ACADEMICS

===BEGIN: REVIEW VOLUME 1 of 2===
Title: The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, The Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama.
[Index Supplement to the Athenaeum with No. 3144, Jan. 28, 1888.]
July to December, 1887.
London: Published by John C. Francis.
Publisher: British Periodicals Limited, 1887
p. 146 [No. 3118, July 30, 1887]
>>books.google.com/books?id=wlNDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q&f=false
===
Euthymii Zigabeni Commentarius in XIV. Epistolas Sancti Pauli. ef VII. Catholicas Epistolas. Nunc primum ad finem Codicis Antiqui cum Prologo et Animadversionibus edidit Nicephorus Calogeras.—Tomus Prior. Complectens Prmflttiones et Interpretationem Episton ad Romanos, I. et II. ad Corintheos, et ad Galatas. (Grevel & Co.)-—Euthymius Zigsbenus, born about the middle of the eleventh century, is commonly classed among the chief writers of the twelfth. Having been educated as a monk, he was patronized and supported by Alexius Comnenus and his famous daughter Anna. His ‘ Panoplia Dogmatica,’ a defence of the orthodox faith against all heresies, is his least important work, which was not published in the original language till A. D. 1710, and then with omissions. His expositions of the Psalms and the four Gospels are better known, especially the latter, which is the best of Euthymius’ writings, in consequence of favourable notices by Richard Simon and F. Matthaei. Of this commentary Matthaei published an excellent edition in Greek and Latin, A.D. 1792. His estimate of its value is, however, exaggerated. Nicephorus Calogeras, Honorary Professor of Theology in the University of Athens, having discovered a MS. containing Euthymius' Commentary on the New Testament epistles, has begun the publication of the original, and the first volume embraces four of the Pauline letters. The learned editor prefixes prolegomena in which he treats of the life and works of Euthymius, the publications of them that have hitherto appeared, his own travels in search of MSS., especially in Italy, and his ultimate success in discovering what he sought at Rome. A facsimile specimen of the codex accompanies the preface. The MS., which is on paper and modern, is perfect with the exception of four or five leaves at the beginning. The volume is well and clearly printed at Athens, the learned editor desiring to send forth this hitherto unknown work of the Constantinopolitan monk in a becoming dress. The perseverance and industry of the professor are highly creditable to him, but the value of the commentary is not great. It has little originality or independence of character, but is for the most part a compilation from the early Greek fathers, especially St. Chrysostom. Matthaei’s judgment of Euthymius is far from correct : "Intellexi hujus viri operam, diligentiam, doctrinam et elegantiam in interpretandis litteris sacris, nec Origeni, nec Chrysostomo, nec Theodoreto, nec ulli alii postponendas ease." The period in which the monk lived was unfavourable to the production of good commentaries on Scripture, whether in the Greek or the Latin Church.
==
[GOOGLE TRANSLATE] Then I knew the work of this great man, and precise, and the teaching of, and elegance therein were to be interpreted the sacred writings, nor Origen, nor Basil, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and do not take second place to any one and to another case.
===END: REVIEW VOLUME 1 of 2===

Midus Itis said...

FRAUD : HOAX : FAKE
Athenaeum Reviewed Nicephorus Calogeras editions.
Nicephorus KNEW THIS MANUSCRIPT WAS A FRAUD, but decided to publish anyway.
NOT BY EUTHYMIUS.
EUTHYMIUS NEVER WROTE A COMMENTARY ON JOHN's EPISTLES.
MORE DECEPTION FROM THE TEXTUAL CRITIC ACADEMICS

===BEGIN: REVIEW VOLUME 2 of 2===
Title: The Athenaeum Journal of Literature, Science, The Fine Arts, Music, and the Drama.
[Index Supplement to the Athenaeum with No. 3222, July 27, 1889.]
January to June, 1889.
London: Published by John C. Francis.
Publisher: British Periodicals Limited, 1887
p. 15 [No. 3193, Jan. 5, 1889]
>>books.google.com/books?id=05_PDK-O3eMC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
==
Euthymii Zigabeni Commentarius in XIV. Fpistolas Sancti Pauli et VII. Catholicas. Nunc primum ad fidem Codicis Antiqui cum Prologo et Animadversionibus edidit Nicephorus Calogeras. Tomus Secundus. (Nutt.)—The first volume of this ancient commentary on the New Testament epistles was noticed in the Athenaeum eighteen months ago. The second volume contains an interpretation of the epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Hebrews, and the seven Catholic ones. The prologue states that the editor came to the knowledge of Cramer's catenae after more than half the present volume had been printed ; that he compared the catenae on the Catholic epistles in the eighth volume of that work with the text of the MS. from which he was himself printing Euthymius' exposition, and found them nearly alike. But he gives seven reasons—not cogent ones, it must be admitted—for continuing the publication from his own manuscript. The volume is of the same character with its predecessor. Each epistle is preceded by a short summary, uncritical and commonplace. In regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is assumed that Paul wrote it to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine, and that he withheld his name lest he should give offense. The opinion that it was written in Hebrew, and put into Greek by "Clement, Pope of Rome," is merely mentioned. The sacred text in Euthymius is the common one ; but in 1 John v. 8 the three heavenly witnesses are omitted. In 1 Timothy iii. 16 the reading is Θεός ἐφανερώθη, which pleases the editor greatly. The interpretation shows no critical perception and elucidates little. The reader will consult it in vain for the exposition of difficult passages, such as Philippians ii. 6–8, where μορφὴ) is simply said to be φύσις ; and the σχῆμα of a man is what is outside his οὐσία, that is, his ἰδέα and μορφὴ) and ἐπιφάνεια and φαινόμενον. The editor's notes, though few, have among them very properly the various readings of Cramer's catenae on the Catholic epistles. We cannot pronounce a more favourable opinion on the value of Euthymius's commentary than we did before.
===END: REVIEW VOLUME 2 of 2===

Midus Itis said...

FRAUD : HOAX : FAKE
SEE CRAMER's CATENA : EXACTLY THE SAME
1. Scanned copy NOT ONLINE.[F1] POST IMAGES OF INTRODUCTION! PAGES 61-64[F2]
2. Nicephorus used a 14th Century Manuscript found in the Vatican MS gr. 6[F2].
GIVE US A LINK TO THE SCANNED IMAGES OF THAT MANUSCRIPT! This published work is a FAKE.
3. Euthymius NEVER WROTE A COMMENTARY ON JOHNs EPISTLES. The commentary on John's Epistles (well everything after I Corinthians) is by other Fathers (or unknown persons) WHO LIVED HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE EUTHYMIUS. The Catena published by Cramer (1833-1844)[F3] includes a commentary on John's Epistle is which is by Chrysostom[F4] using manuscripts MS 58 (GA 2818) dated A. D. 1150[F5] and BNF Coislin gr. 25 (GA 307) dated tenth (Aland) or eleventh (Scrivener) century[F6].
4. CRAMER's CATENA[F7] IS EXACTLY THE SAME : p. 140
>>archive.org/stream/catenaegraecorum08cramuoft#page/140/mode/1up
EUTHYMIUS DID NOT WRITE THIS COMMENTARY.
THIS PUBLICATION IS A JOKE.
===
F1. NOT WORKING: diglib.ypepth.gr/awweb/main.jsp UPDATED LINK NOT WORKING: publiclibs.ypepth.gr : SEE: www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2011/07/11/greek-books-online/
F2. "Kalogeras' preface, pp. 61-64, gives
an interesting account of his search after a
complete MS, which he found at last in MS gr. 6
(saec. xiv.) [ad saec. ad saeculum (Latin: to the century)]
of the Casatensian Library at Rome." "Patristic Commentaries" in
A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, Andrew Bruce Davidson.
James Hastings Originally Published: 1898. Section 3. p. 486
>>books.google.com/books?id=Rxt3f6fbHGgC&pg=PA486#v=onepage&q&f=false
F3. Houghton, H & Parker, D 2016, An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts. in H Houghton (ed.), Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition., 1, Texts and Studies third series, no. 3.13, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 1-36, The Ninth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2/03/15.
p. 20-21
>>pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/27971983/2016_Houghton_Parker_Commentaries.pdf
F4. "The catenae on Acts and the Catholic Epistles, which he describes as based on Chrysostom, are printed from Oxford, New College, MS 58 (GA 2818), with variants from Paris, BnF, Coislin gr. 25 (GA 307)."(Houghton, _Introduction_ 2015. page 20).
F5. GREEK MS. 58 - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Lazarus.
Parchment; ca. A. D. 1150. 3 ff.; 2 cols. (255 x 176 x 80 mm.), 28 lines. 350 x 261 mm. >>library.duke.edu/rubenstein/book/export/html/205
F6. Manuscript 307 Paris, National Library Coislin Greek 25. Soden's Apr11; Tischendorf/Scrivener 15a. Contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete. Dated paleographically to the tenth (Aland) or eleventh (Scrivener) century."
>>www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html#m307
F7. John Anthony Cramer Catena in Epistolas Catholicas,
Accesserunt Oecumenii et Arethae Commentarii in Apocalypsin,
Ad Fidem Codd. Mss.
Edidit. J. A. Cramer,
Oxonii: Academico, 1844.
vol. 8, p. 140
>>archive.org/stream/catenaegraecorum08cramuoft#page/140/mode/1up

Midus Itis said...

FRAUD : HOAX : FAKE
ANOTHER REVIEW EXPOSING THIS FAKE COMMENTARY
NOT BY EUTHYMIUS.
EUTHYMIUS NEVER WROTE A COMMENTARY ON JOHN's EPISTLES.
MORE DECEPTION FROM THE TEXTUAL CRITIC ACADEMICS
===
"Patristic Commentaries" in
A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, Andrew Bruce Davidson.
James Hastings
Originally Published: 1898
Publisher: The Minerva Group, Inc., 2004
Section 3
p. 486
>>books.google.com/books?id=Rxt3f6fbHGgC&pg=PA486#v=onepage&q&f=false
==
3. The third of the great compiliers, Euthymius
Zigabenus, author of the _Panoplia Dogmatica_,
was a younger contemporary of Theophylact, and
flourished under the emperor Alexius Comnenus,
c. 1100 A.D. C.F. Matthaei, the first editor of
the original Greek of Euthymius' commnentary on
the Gospels, had found at at Munich a MS of Euthymius
on Romans and 1 Corinthians. But it is a
Greek scholar, Nicolas Kalogeras, late archbishop
of Patras, to whom the publication of the
commentary on the Pauline epistles is due (Athens,
1887, 2 vols.). Kalogeras' preface, pp. 61-64, gives
an interesting account of his search after a
complete MS, which he found at last in MS gr. 6
(saec. xiv.) [ad saec. ad saeculum (Latin: to the century)]
of the Casatensian Library at Rome.
The title of the commentary runs, according to
the MS:
Ἑρμηνεία τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ μεγάλου ἀποστόλου Παύλου φιλοπόνως ἐπανισθεῖσα,
μάλιστα μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐξηγήσεως τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ
Χρυσοστόμου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ διαφόρων ἄλλων πατέρων,
συνεισενεγκόντος τινὰ καὶ τοῦ ταύτην ἐπανισαμένου τοῦ
Ζιγαβηνοῦ Εὐθυμίου μοναχοῦ.
[Interpretation of the Scriptures of the great apostle Paul prompted again,
even with the explanation of our father (among the saints)
John Chrysostom, that he and other various fathers,
conscientious objection and that re-emergent
Euthymius Zigabinos the Justy monk.]
Besides Chrysostom, the
chief sources used are said to be Basil and Gregory
Nazianzen; but the citations are all made
anonymously.* The agreement with Theophylact is
often exact and verbal (Ehrhard in Krumbacher,
pp. 84, 134). The order of the Pauline epistles in
the MS is Romans, 1, and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Col,
Philem., 1 and 2 Thess., Phil., Heb., 1 and 2 Tim.,
Titus.
==
* Except in the commentary on the Catholic epistles, vol. ii.
pp. 473-664, which, however, is probably not by Euthymius.

Midus Itis said...

ALEXANDRIAN MSS ARE MOSTLY CORRUPTED.
EVIDENCE OF I JOHN 5:7 REMOVED BY HERETICS
1. YOU ARE HIDING THE CRITICAL NOTES ON I JOHN 5:7. Looking at the image of I John 5 on your blog page[F1] I can see that there is a note at the end of I John 5:7 "δ" BUT YOU CUT OFF THE PAGE. What did it say? Give us a FULL IMAGE OF THE WHOLE PAGE! Stop hiding things
2. CORRUPT MANUSCRIPT. YOU ARE HIDING THE CORRUPTION OF I John 5:6. It reads "This is the one who is coming through: WATER & BLOOD & SPIRIT, not in water only but in WATER & BLOOD."[F2][F3] SEE HOW IT READS " WATER & BLOOD & SPIRIT" ?? THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT TEXT. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus (as well as many fathers) are different in I John 5:6[F4]
NOTHING TO SEE HERE BUT CORRUPTED ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPTS.
I John 5:6 CORRUPTED PROVES THAT I JOHN 5:7 WAS REMOVED FROM THE TEXT.
===
F1. >>1.bp.blogspot.com/-RKtDZSPHPMo/TxF08jhChpI/AAAAAAAAB3w/n1tjX9ELHuo/s400/%25CE%2596%25CE%2599%25CE%2593%25CE%2591%25CE%2592%25CE%2597%25CE%259D%25CE%259F%25CE%25A3+%25CE%2595%25CE%25A5%25CE%2598%25CE%25A5%25CE%259C%25CE%2599%25CE%259F%25CE%25A3+1887+%25CE%2595%25CF%2581%25CE%25BC%25CE%25B7%25CE%25BD%25CE%25B5%25CE%25AF%25CE%25B1+%25CE%25B5%25CE%25B9%25CF%2582+%25CF%2584%25CE%25B1%25CF%2582+%25CE%2595%25CF%2580%25CE%25B9%25CF%2583%25CF%2584%25CE%25BF%25CE%25BB%25CE%25AC%25CF%2582+%25CF%2583+630.JPG
F2. Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ Πνεύματος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
Οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι.
>>e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2012/01/commentary-on-letters-of-john-zigabenus.html
F3. See also Cramer's Catena I John 5 pages:
>>archive.org/stream/catenaegraecorum08cramuoft#page/140/mode/1up
F4. I John 5:6 CORRUPTED : PROOF OF I JOHN 5:7 REMOVED
Codex Alexandrinus : I John 5:6
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός·
οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι
>>archive.org/stream/codexalexandrinu00woid#page/323/mode/1up

Codex Vaticanus : I John 5:6
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός·
οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνὼ, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἅματι
>>archive.org/stream/MN42092ucmf_2#page/n326/mode/1up

Codex Sinaiticus : I John 5:6
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός·
οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνῳ, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἅματι
>>codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=55&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0

Cyril of Alexandria (378-444 AD) : I John 5:6
Thesaurus, assertio 34
PG 75 616-617
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός·
οὐκ εν̓ τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι
>>books.google.com/books?id=WdkAawkOcAgC&pg=PA16-IA220#v=onepage&q&f=false


Leo the Great (400-461 AD)
XXVIII [XXXVIII] EPISTOLA LEONIS AD FLAVIANUM EPISCOPUM. Contra Eutychetis perfidiam.
CAP. VI. Eutychis prava et subdola confessio. Qua ratione, si resipiscit, communioni sit restituendus. Legati mittuntur in Orientem.
PL 54, 776
οὗτος ὁ ἐρχόμενος δι' ὕδατος, καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός·
οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ' ἐν ὕδατι, καὶ αἵματι·
>>books.google.com/books?id=9fgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA777#v=onepage&q&f=false

digiSapientia said...

Dear Midus Itis,

Thank you for your interesting information.

One way or another, Zigabenus didn't know the Comma. In his Panoplia it is missing...

https://snag.gy/vkD6KB.jpg

The same is true for the Latin translation:

https://snag.gy/G0gKYJ.jpg

So if the catena is a product of Zigabenus or it is a previous, older compilation, the important point is that even in the 12th cent. the Comma was not found in the Greek NT mss read by the Byzantines.

digiSapientia said...

And the requested whole page:

https://snag.gy/2bVcaJ.jpg

digiSapientia said...

Actually, Zigabenus was reading this in his New Testament:

https://snag.gy/xwHeW8.jpg

(Ms. Ott.gr.73, Euthymii Zigabeni Panoplia dogmatica)