Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Χειρογραφική «αναθεώρηση»
με βάση το Ιωάννειο Κόμμα:
Η περίπτωση της Δογματικής πανοπλίας
του Ευθύμιου Ζιγαβηνού (Ζιγαδηνού) /

Manuscript “revision”
in harmony with the Johannine Comma:
The case of Euthymius Zigabenus' (Zigadenus)
Panoplia dogmatica




Zigadenus glaberrimus







Πρωτότυπη έρευνα στην Ελληνική OrthodoxWiki:
Original research at the Greek OrthodoxWiki:






μέσα 19ου αι. / mid 19th cent.
Το απόσπασμα του Ζιγαβηνού 
στην Patrologia Graeca του J. P. Migne (130:871, 872BC): 
/ Zigabenus' passage
in J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca (130:871, 872BC):




αρχές 18ου αι. / early 18th cent.
Το απόσπασμα του Ζιγαβηνού 
στην έκδοση της Μητρόπολης Ουγγροβλαχίας 
(επιμ. Μητροφάνη Γρηγορά, 1710)
η οποία χρησιμοποιήθηκε στην Patrologia Graeca του J. P. Migne: 
/ Zigabenus' passage
in the edition of the Metropolis of Ungro-Vlachia
(ed. Metrophanes Gregoras, 1710)
used by the J. P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca:




τέλη 16ου αι. / late 16th cent.
Το απόσπασμα του Ζιγαβηνού 
σε λατινική μετάφραση του Petrus Franciscus Zinus 
(apud Sebastianum Barptolomaei Honorati, 1577):
/ Zigabenus' passage
in Latin translation by Petrus Franciscus Zinus 
(apud Sebastianum Barptolomaei Honorati, 1577):




μέσα 16ου αι. / mid 16th cent.
Το απόσπασμα του Ζιγαβηνού 
σε λατινική μετάφραση του Petrus Franciscus Zinus 
(έκδ. Hieronymus Scotus, 1555):
/ Zigabenus' passage
in Latin translation by Petrus Franciscus Zinus 
(Hieronymus Scotus ed., 1555):





12ος αι. / 12th cent.
Το ελληνικό αυτόγραφο (ή αντίγραφό του
τού έργου τού Ζιγαβηνού
(Βρετανική Βιβλιοθήκη, MS 11871):
/ The Greek autograph (or a copy of it)
of Zigabenus' work
(The British Library, MS 11871):










11 comments:

Midus Itis said...

<<1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini>>
PART I : FLAWED & CORRUPT & UNKNOWN MANUSCRIPTS
1. The Latin translation by Pietro Francesco Zini (1520-1574) of the Panoplia was originally published in 1555 (2 column format) and reprinted in 1556, 1575, 1577 (single column format). The translation suffers serious flaws due to incomplete and corrupt manuscripts.[F1]
a. Chapter 13 is missing from Zini's translation resulting chapters 13-24 wrongly numbered.
b. Other Chapters missing completely: The Panoplia has 28 chapters, while Zini's translation has only 24.
2. The missing Chapter 13 is a work of the Orthodox Theologian against the Western Filioque (i.e., procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father & the Son) titled: "Patriarch Photios against the followers of Rome; that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not, however, out of the Son." It is very obvious why this was "omitted", but the fact that all the rest of the chapters are numbered incorrectly indicates that the manuscripts were flawed.
"The Latin version of the Zigabean Panoply raises some important problems that I limit myself here to mention and on which I hope to be able to return soon. The first volume of the Zini contains the titles I-XI according to the text published in PG 130; the second the titles XII-XXVIII. Unfortunately, the absence of a critical edition of the Panopli, which against the other - as was inevitable, given the content and the meaning of the script - [lack of] a high number of codices, does not allow to be more precise about the textual conditions of the version of Zini and the omissions that are recorded in comparison with the edition reproduced in PG 130. The comparison testifies for example that in the version of Zini are missing the titles XIX (Contra Agnoetas) and XX (Contra Origenem), which were for the first brought to light by the Matthaeius in the Prolegomena of the Commentarii at Evangelia of Euthymius (see PG 130, Col. 1105). Above all it lacks the title XIII..."[F4]

Midus Itis said...

<<1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini>>
PART II : FLAWED & CORRUPT & UNKNOWN MANUSCRIPTS
3. This obvious omission (or convenient corruption) due to theological objections is not surprising when other historical facts come to light concerning the time, urgency, and men involved. The Panoplia was a work by the Greek Orthodox theologian Euthymius articulating the Greek Orthodox position on points of theology and ecclesiastical authority. Miladinova in her book _Panoplia Dogmatike_ gives the historical context thus: "The translation of the _Panoplia_ into Latin coincided with the time between the second and the third period of the Council of Trent, the thirteenth session of which was held on 11 October 1551, and issued a decree on the sacrament of the Eurcharist."[F6] In 1553 Zini (catholic priest, canon of Verona Italy) was invited to translate the work by Luigi Lippomano[F4][F5]. Other figures who were involved in this translation project were Cardinal Reginald Pole, Cardinal Marcello Cervini (who was the Vatican librarian). Cervini procured the manuscripts from the Vatican library that were used for Zini's translation.[F4][F6] In the midst of the Roman Catholic Church establishing its authority and condeming all others by the decrees of the council of Trent, Rome sponsored a translation of a Greek Orthodox theological work into Latin. Before the ink could dry, the new translation would be placed in the Marganin de la Bigne edition of the Patristic Fathers published in 1575. It was only a short time until Trentian Roman Catholic Theologians (Bellamine _Disputationes_ 1586) used Zini's translation to combat the Reformation concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no doubt that these facts render the validity and integrity of Zini's translation suspect to political intrigue and possibility the deliberate alteration of the manuscripts.
4. Although Zini was approached in 1553, he had to wait until complete manuscripts could be "found" by the Vatican Librarian Cervini to publish his translation. But as we see, Zini's translation was far from complete.[F4]
5. What Greek manuscripts were used? "In the prologue to the Latin edition Francesco Zini states that with the permission of
the librarian of the Vatican library, he has used a vetustissmum exemplar of the Greek original."[F7][F8] But as Bossini has admitted the ability to know what Greek manuscript(s) was used by Zini scholars cannot be "precise". On the basis of Zini's prologue, scholars have sought out the catalogs of the Vatican Library. Cervini created a catalog of manuscripts during his time as Librarian. This catalog has yielded a number of possible manuscripts used by Zini, but none of them is complete (Cod. Vat. Gr. 666, Cod. Vat. Gr. 667, Cod. Vat. Gr. 1099).[F9][F10][F11][F12] Moreover, NONE OF THESE MANUSCRIPTS CONTAINS CHAPTER 12 (which has I John 5:6-9). Obviously, the manuscript that Zini mentioned in the prologue has not been found. The manuscripts suggested by Miladinova & Bossini are educated guesses at best. The Greek manuscript of Zini is unknown and these manuscripts (conjectured by scholars) are represent an incomplete _Panoplia_ and more importantly ALL LACK CHAPTER 12.

Midus Itis said...

<<1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini>>
PART III : FLAWED & CORRUPT & UNKNOWN MANUSCRIPTS
6. Therefore, the Greek Manuscript IMAGE ON THIS WEB PAGE is from British Library Add MS 11871 (BS 11871) f178v [F13] CANNOT BE THE SAME ONE THAT ZINI USED FOR HIS LATIN TRANSLATION. As you can see on THE MANUSCRIPT CONTAINS CHAPTER 13. ZINI DOES NOT HAVE CHAPTER 13 in his Latin translation. ZINI HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF CHAPTER 13 (as his numbering demonstrates he never saw it). SO THIS MANUSCRIPT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ZINI USED. ZINI GREEK MSS ARE UNKNOWN.
7. THE 2 IMAGES OF ZINI TRANSLATION OF THE PANOPLIA. ZINI's WORK WAS REPRINTED. The different printings ARE EXACTLY THE SAME (but different format as I stated above). THIS WEB PAGE HAS IMAGES FROM ZINI EDITIONS 1555 and 1577. WHAT IS THE POINT OF POSTING 2 IMAGES OF A REPUBLISHED WORK?? OF COURSE THEY ARE THE SAME! The author of this page is either IGNORANT OF THE HISTORY OF ZINI's work OR MAYBE THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE OTHERS.
8. Finally, THE Tergovisti 1710 EDITION TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK TEXT INTO LATIN IS SIMPLY AND CLEARLY CORRECTING ZINI. YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF INTERPOLATION ARE GROUNDLESS. THE GREEK of Euthymius is there in front of you and the Greek Orthodox Scholars TRANSLATED THE GREEK TEXT INTO LATIN. Your assumptions have no basis in fact and are absurd. WHERE IS ZINI's GREEK TEXT? WHEN YOU HAVE IT REPOST THE LINK TO THE MANUSCRIPT AND ANY EVIDENCE.
===CONCLUSION:===
1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini is flawed, corrupted, and incomplete. THE GREEK MSS EXEMPLAR IS UNKNOWN AND LOST. With NO GREEK MSS, the Latin translation CANNOT BE A WITNESS AGAINST THE 1710 PANOPLIA GREEK EDITION. THEREFORE, THE ACCUSATIONS OF ALTERATION, ADDITION, AND/OR INTERPOLATION OF I John 5:7 IN THE 1710 Tergovisti GREEK EDITION BASED ON ZINI LATIN VERSION ARE UNFOUNDED AND LACKING RELIABLE EVIDENCE.

Midus Itis said...

<<1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini>>
PART III : FLAWED & CORRUPT & UNKNOWN MANUSCRIPTS
===FOOTNOTES:===
F1. Pietro Francesco Zini (1520-1574) was an Italian scholar, catholic priest, canon of Verona [Italy], humanist, editor and translator of classical writers, including Philo.
>>www.4enoch.org/wiki4/index.p hp?title=Pietro_Francesco_Zini _(1520-1574),_scholar
F2. ΙΓ Φωτίου Πατριάρχου κατὰ τῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς Ῥώμης, ὅτι ἐκ Πατρὸς μόνου ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ.
Photii patriarchae, contra Romae asseclas : quod ex solo Patre procedit Spiritus sanctus, non autem et ex Filio [GOOGLE TRANSLATE:
Patriarch Photios against the followers of Rome; that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not, however, out of the Son.]
Migne Vol 130, col 875-876
>>books.google.com/books?id=gw23bzN1j2cC&pg=PA875#v=onepage&q&f=true
F3. Luciano Bossina and Enrico Valdo Maltese. "Dal ‟500 al Migne. Prime Recerche su Pier Francesco Zini (1520-1580)," in _I Padri Sotto Il Torchio: Le Edizioni Del'antichità Cristiana Nei Secoli 15-16. Atti Del Convegno Di Studi, Certosa Del Galluzzo Firenze, 25-26 Giugno 1999_. Cortesi, Mariarosa. Firenze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2002. Print.
pages 244-245 (esp. footnote: 76)
>>www.worldcat.org/oclc/1000795957
F4. "Le versione latina dell Panoplia dell Zigabeno solleva alcuni importanti problemi che mi limito qui ad accennare e sui quali mi auguro di poter ritornare prossimamente. Il primo volume dello Zini contiene i titoli I-XI secondo il testo edito in PG 120; il secondo i titoli XII-XXVIII. Purtroppo l'assenza di una edizione critica dell Panopli, che contra l'altro - com'era inevitabile, visto il tenore e il significato dello scritto - un alto numero di codici, non permette di essere piu precisi circa le condizioni testuali della versione dello Zini e le omissioni che pure si registrano al confronto con l'edizione riprodotta in PG 130. Il confronto ci testimonia ad esempio che nella versione dello Zini mancano i titoli XIX (Contra Agnoetas) e XX (Contra Origenem), che furono per la prima volta portati alla luce dal Matthaeius nei Prolegomena dei Commentarii ad Evangelia di Eutimio (vedi PG 130, col. 1105). Soprattutto manca il titolo XIII...". Bossina. "Dal ‟500 al Migne" (2002), p. 245n76.
F5. Luigi Lippomano was among the first in Rome to join the "Oratorio della Carità" founded by St. Cajetan of Tiene, and composed of distinguished men, who in the Roman Curia were the leaven of Church reform, and afterwards took a prominent part in the Council of Trent).
>>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Luigi_Lippomano

Midus Itis said...

<<1555 Latin Translation of Panoplia by Pietro Francesco Zini>>
PART III : FLAWED & CORRUPT & UNKNOWN MANUSCRIPTS
===FOOTNOTES:===
F6. N. Miladinova, The Panoplia Dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos. A Study of the First Edition Published in Greek in 1710, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 4, Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2014. p. 137-138. esp. 138n19
"The translation of the Panoplia into Latin coincided with the time between the second and third period of the Council of Trent, the thirteenth session of which was held on 11 October 1551, and issued a decree on the sacrament of the Eucharist. The translation was made by a distinguised patristic scholar, Pietro Francesco Zini, who mentions in the prologue as benefactors of this translation Cardinal Reginald Pole (1500-1558), Aloisius Lippomano (1500-1559), and Cardinal Marcello Cervini (1501-1555), all of them prominent figures in the proceedings of and around the Council. In addition, the prologue of Zini contains a respectuful mention of Pope Paul III, the pope who convened the Council of Trent in 1545."
>>books.google.com/books?id=SYmIBAAAQBAJ&vq=library&source=gbs_navlinks_s
F7. Miladinova. _Panoplia_. Brill, 2014. p. 168.
F8. Euthymii monarchi Zigabeni Orthodoxae fidei dogmatica Panoplia Hucusque Latinis incognita et nunc primum per Petrum Franciscum Zinum Veronensem e Graeco translata_. Lugduni : apud Hieronymus Scotus, 1555. vol 1 [page 15].
"Quanquam ea quoque de causa tibi potissimum debentur, quod me ad hanc provinciam suscipiendam hortatus es, et Verona exemplari misso multum adiuvisti. Licet enim Illustrissimus et reverendissimus Marcellus Ceruinus Cardinalis, qua est in studiosos omnes singulari humanitate, ex Bibliotheca Vaticana mihi vetustum exemplar accommodarit, quod multo libentius fecit, cum intelligeret, me causa tua cupere illud e Graeco in Latinum convertere, tuum tamen mihi multum attulit adiumenti."
>>books.google.com/books?id=csBIAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP11#v=onepage&q&f=false
F9. Robert Devreesee, _Le Fonds Grec de la Bibliotheque Vaticane des Origines a Paul V_, Studi e Testi 244 (Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965), p. 171.
F10. Manuscript - Vat.gr.666. (12th Century)
Contents: Euthymi Zigabeni panopliae dogmaticae liber I (Chapter 1-11).
>>digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.666
F11. Manuscript - Vat. gr. 667 (14th Century)
Contents: Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, excerpts from the letter on the seven ecumenical councils: ff. 451v-459v.
>>doaks.org/resources/mmdb/manuscripts/1669
F12. Manuscript - Vat. gr. 1099 (12th Century)
Contents: XII. tituli de sancto spiritu. Excerpta ex epistolis Athanasii Alexandrini ... Excerpta ex epistola Fotii patriarchae ad Michaelem principem Bulgarie de 7 synodis oecumenicis [Footnote 34: il s'agit de la Panoplie d'Euthyme Zigabene.]
[XII. Title of the Holy Spirit. Excerpts from letters Athanasius of Alexandria ... Excerpts from the letter to Michael Foti patriarch, the leader of Bulgaria 7 ecumenical councils.[footnote 34: this is the Euthyme Zigabene Set.] ] Robert Devreesee, _Le Fonds Grec de la Bibliotheque Vaticane des Origines a Paul V_, Studi e Testi 244 (Citta del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965), p. 451.
>>pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/67730/
F13. Euthymius Zigabenus, Orthodoxae fidei panoplia dogmatica
British Library Add MS 11871 (12th Century)
Scanned Images
>>www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_11871_f178v
Full Record
>>www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_11871

Midus Itis said...

==FOOTNOTES F2 & F3 SHOULD GO HERE==
a. Chapter 13 is missing from Zini's translation resulting chapters 13-24 wrongly numbered.[F2]
b. Other Chapters missing completely: The Panoplia has 28 chapters, while Zini's translation has only 24.[F3]

digiSapientia said...

Dear Midus Itis,

Thank you for your researched comments. My general comment has been that the earlier of the manuscripts you get, the more improbable to find them containing the Johannine Comma.

Of course, the Latin translation of Zigabenus' Panoplia is not the top argument but it adds to the argumentation that even in Latin contexts (not to speak for Greek) we can find the Comma missing, following on this issue the original Greek NT tradition.

Regards,

Midus Itis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Midus Itis said...

Dear digiSapientia,
I thank your kind words concerning my posts.
I am sorry you have been deceived by the false claims of objective textual criticism.
If the criteria was really objective and consistent used to exclude I John 5:7,8 (as seen in Euthymius 12th Century quote from the work of Cyril of Alexandria), and that same criteria were applied to Mark 16:9-20, then Mark 16:9-20 would be declared Scripture by these same critics. But that will not happen because they would have to admit that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have been corrupted (which is more than obvious to any fair minded informed person -- just read the Wikipedia article).
The textual critics create new criteria and change it whenever necessary to protect their pet theories and their pet Alexandrian family (why is Sinaiticus given the sigla "Aleph"?).
So many of their theories have been proven wrong (short is the more original reading; the harder reading is the more original reading; scribes are more inclined to add text; scribes are less likely to abridge text; the longer readings were corruptions of the Byzantine scribes; etc.). But still they continue to insist that they are authorities above all else and that their precious critical theory should be considered the only certain "scientific" method to determining the "original text" (which they have admitted is irrevocably lost beyond any actual certainty). Notice how the Wikipedia on I John 5 deceptively states that the verse was never "quoted". Did the fathers have numbered verses? Who decides when a verse is "quoted"? Yes, the same "authorities" that have dismissed or explained away any real evidence. The only certainty these men have is in their own arrogant rationalism. You think they would have learned a lesson from being so duped and humiliated when MSS 2427 was proved a fraud created by Simonides, but no, they are gods if only to themselves. How telling that they are still under his spell (i.e., Sinaiticus).
Yet, their whole house of cards is built on manuscripts with unknown provenance.
I am planning on posting more on the 1710 Panoplia. (You do see that the Greek text has articles? and it also has verse 8 with εἰς).
Courage and Godspeed.

The Best and Most Complete Book : With English Translations
George Travis (Archdeacon of Chester)
Letters to Edward Gibbon Author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A Vindication of the Authenticity of the Verse, I John 5:7
THIRD EDITION
London, 1794
>>books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
DO NOT BUY IT USED SINCE YOU WILL GET THE OLDER EDITIONS
>>www.amazon.com/dp/1140762532

digiSapientia said...

Dear Midus Itis,

I don't think that anyone woθld support that textual criticism is infallible. But it's a rational way to read the avialable mss. of bodies of texts.

Regarding the Johannine Comma, I think that nobody is able today to make a standing case for its authenticity. It is clear that it's a late addition to the Joahannine text, not fitting at alla to its context (except the number three).

Regards,

Midus Itis said...

Eclectic Rationalism is Inherently Biased REFUSING TO CORRECT THEIR FAILED THEORIES ABOUT THE TR & BYZANTINE GREEK NT TEXT
Hebrews 1:3 TR Reading Established by Manuscripts FOUND IN 1930s & DATED 200 AD
Oxy P46
Aquired by Chester Beatty: 1930, 1931, 1933, 1935
Dated: from 175 to 225
Published: Sanders, 1935; Kenyon, 1936.
Brief: Nestle-Aland compilers did not adopt the reading with the oldest manuscript-support several times in this passage, particularly in verse 3, where P46 has δι’ αυτου and the Byzantine Text virtually concurs by reading δι’ εαυτου. The KJV, MEV, and NKJV read “by Himself” in this verse – following the sense given by the oldest manuscript and by the majority of manuscripts – and the CSB, NIV, NASB, and ESV do not. Readers of the ESV and NASB are not given a footnote at Hebrews 1:3 to inform them that their English translation disagrees with the oldest and most widely attested reading there – succinctly refuting the idea that their footnotes always point out where manuscript-differences affect translation.
Hebrews 1:3 & P46
TR: δι' εαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ημῶν
NIV: καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος
P46 Transcribed : Lines MSS GREEK
[10] δι αυτου καθαρισμον των αμαρτιων
[11] ποιησαμενος [*] εκαθισεν
===Reference:===
IMAGE: P.Mich.inv. 6238; Recto
>>quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-3570/6238_41.tif
GREEK TEXT transcribed in article:
>>www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/0243Collation.PDF
James Snapp: "Hebrews 1:1-6, Papyrus 46, and the Byzantine Text"
>>www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/06/hebrews-11-6-papyrus-46-and-byzantine.html
H.A. Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (Ann Arbor, 1935), pp. 13–15.
F.G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, part 3 (London, 1936), xiv–xv.