​General Feedback

The notorious ΝΥΜΦΑΝ at Colossians 4.15

Toggle

Please forgive me if this is not the right place for such a question.

On Colossians 4.15, Metzger, A Textual Commentary, refers to Origen in support of feminine Νύμφαν. I have not been able to find any discusson of this name in Origen via the TLG or Clavis Patrum. Does any one know (how to find out) where Origen's evidence for the feminine (or the masculine) is? UBS4 only mentions Chrysostom...

Many thanks,

-- Patrick

0 (0 Votes)

RE: The notorious ΝΥΜΦΑΝ at Colossians 4.15
Answer
4/26/17 9:26 AM as a reply to Patrick James.

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your message. I am (we are) always interested if you find mistakes and happy to answer questions about the NA or UBS editions.

Concerning your question, I also did not find evidence of this reading in Origen's works.  As you mention, this citation is not in the UBS4, but was in the UBS1 (1966), 2 (1968), and 3 (1975).  The apparatus data from these earlier editions was probably taken from the NA25 (1963), which indeed has a citation of Origen here.  The first Nestle edition to cite Origen here was the N13 (1927).  I do not know for sure, but the N13 could have used the data from Souter's edition, Novum Testamentum Graece (1910), which has a citation of Origen here.  Souter's reference to Origen is the earliest I have seen in the limited search I was able to do.  Neither Tischendorf nor von Soden (i.e. the sources that Erwin Nestle states he used for most of his patristic evidence) have a reference to Origen here.  

So, to try to answer your question, Metzger was probably using the apparatus of the UBS1 and /or UBS2 when he wrote the Textual Commentary (first ed. 1971), and this citation was probably not checked when producing the second edition of the Textual Commentary (1994), which I suppose is the edition you're using.  The citation of Origen is no longer in the UBS or NA editions, probably simply because it is either inaccurate somehow or does not exist.

If you are really keen on finding the source, I would try to find the sources of Souter's information (which could be Minge's Patrologia Graeca series).

I hope this helps.  Please feel free to follow up with more questions.

0 (0 Votes)

RE: The notorious ΝΥΜΦΑΝ at Colossians 4.15
Answer
4/26/17 11:35 AM as a reply to greg s paulson.

This is immensely helpful. Thank you for taking the time to investigate for me and to reply so fully.

Perhaps, the citation was omitted from later editions because it could not be verified, as you and I have found. Your account of Metzger's use seems plausible: indeed, I am using his second edition.

I see that Souter does mention Origen as well as Euthal.^cod. and Ambrosiaster. Given Souter's interests in Latin Patristics, I wonder if a Latin version of Origen is involved.
If so, the TLG, of course, would not find it. A TLG search of 'Νύμφα' turned up Colossians, but no other Christian literature.
Alternatively, perhaps we have a reference to Origen's reading in another Father. If the latter, it will be hard to track the citation down.

Thanks for checking Tischendorf and von Soden. I was able to consult Tregelles, at Dirk Jongkind's recommendation: his patristic citations do not mention Origen.

0 (0 Votes)

RE: The notorious ΝΥΜΦΑΝ at Colossians 4.15
Answer
5/22/17 4:28 PM as a reply to Patrick James.
Another option (for Origen) could be 1739 via von der Goltz or Lake & Lake. I don't have access to my books at the moment, but the correction in 1739 could have been attributed to Origen. The timing broadly fits (i.e. post Tischendorf and pre Souter). Just a thought.
0 (0 Votes)

RE: The notorious ΝΥΜΦΑΝ at Colossians 4.15
Answer
5/23/17 10:42 AM as a reply to Peter Macaulay Head.

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for this very plausible suggestion. I'll investigate as and when I can. If you do have an opportunity to corroborate your suspicion soon, please do let me know what you find.

-- Patrick

0 (0 Votes)