Steven Avery
Administrator
Elias Hutter (1553-1605)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Hutter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Hutter
Last edited:
Elias Hutter
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
RGA - p. 135
In his New Testament polyglot (Nuremberg, 1599-
1600), Hutter included Tremellius’ hypothetical translation within the Syriac text, albeit in parentheses, since he, relying on ps.-Jerome’s preface to the Catholic Epistles, considered its omission “an egregious error that ought not to be passed over in silence nor excused on any account” (insigne erratum nec silentio prætereundum nec ulla ratione excusandum). On the basis of Hutter’s authority, the comma was retained in the Syriac editions of Gutbier (Hamburg, 1664-1667) and Schaaf (Leiden, 1709), and was not excised again until the British and Foreign Bible Society editions of 1816 and 1920.157
157 Bludau, 1903b; Metzger, 1977, 53; Borger, 1987, reprints the comments of Tremellius and Hutter. The Latin translation of the comma given by Tremellius is that of Beza, with one minor variant. According to Norton, 1889, [footnote to 1 Jn 5:7, without page number], the comma is also absent from the 1703 edition representing the Syriac text used by the Maronites, as well as the Indian (1816) and Nestorian (1852) editions.
p. 144
Within the Calvinist discourse, the question of the comma was never far from the spectre of Arianism. In his disputation on the three heavenly witnesse (first published 1661), François Turrettini (1623-1687) reviewed the manuscript evidence for the passage. “Erasmus,” Turrettini narrated, “declares that [the comma] is found in the very ancient British Codex, which he considered so authoritative that he restored this verse, omitted from his previous editions, in the later editions, which he revised with utmost care, as he himself says.” If the comma is missing from other manuscripts, this is to be attributed to the wicked fraud of the Arians, who removed it.175
175 Turrettini, 1847-1848, IV:290: “Erasmus fatetur [hunc versum] extare in Codice Britannico vetustissimo, qui tantæ fuit apud ipsum authoritatis, ut versiculum istum in prioribus Editionibus omissum, in posterioribus accuratissima cura, ut ipse scribit recognitis, restitueret. Laudatissimæ Editiones, Complutensis, Regia Antuerpiensis, Ariæ Montani, Rob. Stephani, Eliæ Hutteri, Valtoni, quæ probatissimis et vetustissimis Codicibus usæ sunt, retinent. Unde si in quibusdam desideratur, hoc fraudi et dolo malo Arianorum adscribendum est, qui textum hunc eraserunt, quia punctim transfigebat eorum hæresim; ut Hieronymus testatur.”
Turrettini, François. Opera. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Lowe, 1847-1848
De necessaria secessione ab ecclesia romana, disputationes; disputationum miscellanearum decas; accesserunt, De satisfactione Christi; De circulo pontificio; De concordia Pauli et Jacobi in articulo justificationis; Disputationes
Turretin
https://books.google.com/books?id=KhRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA290
one more minor
======================
BCEME - p. 61
In his polyglot New Testament (Nuremberg, 1599–1600), Elias Hutter moved Tremellius’ hypothetical Syriac translation of the comma into the body text, though he placed it in parentheses. Hutter was evidently convinced of the genuineness of the comma. Citing the prologue to the Catholic Epistles, he condemned its omission from the German and Danish translations ‘an egregious error that ought not to be passed over in silence nor excused on any account’.18 Martin Trost, who produced an edition of the Syriac text of
1 Jn for use in schools in 1621, once again excised the comma.19 However, on Hutter’s authority, the comma was retained in the Syriac editions of Gutbier (Hamburg, 1664–1667) and Leusden and Schaaf (Leiden, 1709). However, Samuel Lee once again excluded the comma from his edition, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1816.20
18 Hutter 1599–1600, 1:***r–v (commentary), 2:902–903 (text); cf. Borger 1987, 281–282.
19 Trost 1621, 20.
20 Gutbier 1664, 560 (text); Gutbier 1667, 43 (C6r in ‘Notae’ at the end of the volume); Leusden and Schaaf 1709, 597 (square brackets around ‘in terra’ only); Gwilliam 1905–1920, 2:64. Leusden 1670, 35–38, defended the comma as a ‘splendid and very beautiful testimony for proving the Holy Trinity’ (Testimonium luculentum & pulcherrimum pro probanda S. S. Trinitate). He explained the absence of the comma from the early translations (including the Syriac) by suggesting that these were made from corrupt Greek copies. Borger 1987, reprints the comments of Tremellius and Hutter. The Latin translation of the comma given by Tremellius is that of Beza, with one minor variant. Norton 1889, [footnote to 1 Jn 5:7, no page number], notes that the comma is also absent
from Novum Testamentum Syriacum, et Arabicum 1703, representing the Syriac text used by the Maronites, as well as the editions of the Nestorians in India (ed. Samuel Lee 1816) and Kurdistan (1852, probably an error for Perkins’ edition of 1846, DM 9029), though Norton included the comma in brackets in his translation both of the Syriac and the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of 1881. Further, see Bludau 1903b; Metzger 1977, 53.
Hutter, Elias, ed. Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi. 2 vols. Nuremberg: [Dietrich], 1599–1600.
In his New Testament polyglot (Nuremberg, 1599-
1600), Hutter included Tremellius’ hypothetical translation within the Syriac text, albeit in parentheses, since he, relying on ps.-Jerome’s preface to the Catholic Epistles, considered its omission “an egregious error that ought not to be passed over in silence nor excused on any account” (insigne erratum nec silentio prætereundum nec ulla ratione excusandum). On the basis of Hutter’s authority, the comma was retained in the Syriac editions of Gutbier (Hamburg, 1664-1667) and Schaaf (Leiden, 1709), and was not excised again until the British and Foreign Bible Society editions of 1816 and 1920.157
157 Bludau, 1903b; Metzger, 1977, 53; Borger, 1987, reprints the comments of Tremellius and Hutter. The Latin translation of the comma given by Tremellius is that of Beza, with one minor variant. According to Norton, 1889, [footnote to 1 Jn 5:7, without page number], the comma is also absent from the 1703 edition representing the Syriac text used by the Maronites, as well as the Indian (1816) and Nestorian (1852) editions.
p. 144
Within the Calvinist discourse, the question of the comma was never far from the spectre of Arianism. In his disputation on the three heavenly witnesse (first published 1661), François Turrettini (1623-1687) reviewed the manuscript evidence for the passage. “Erasmus,” Turrettini narrated, “declares that [the comma] is found in the very ancient British Codex, which he considered so authoritative that he restored this verse, omitted from his previous editions, in the later editions, which he revised with utmost care, as he himself says.” If the comma is missing from other manuscripts, this is to be attributed to the wicked fraud of the Arians, who removed it.175
175 Turrettini, 1847-1848, IV:290: “Erasmus fatetur [hunc versum] extare in Codice Britannico vetustissimo, qui tantæ fuit apud ipsum authoritatis, ut versiculum istum in prioribus Editionibus omissum, in posterioribus accuratissima cura, ut ipse scribit recognitis, restitueret. Laudatissimæ Editiones, Complutensis, Regia Antuerpiensis, Ariæ Montani, Rob. Stephani, Eliæ Hutteri, Valtoni, quæ probatissimis et vetustissimis Codicibus usæ sunt, retinent. Unde si in quibusdam desideratur, hoc fraudi et dolo malo Arianorum adscribendum est, qui textum hunc eraserunt, quia punctim transfigebat eorum hæresim; ut Hieronymus testatur.”
Turrettini, François. Opera. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Lowe, 1847-1848
De necessaria secessione ab ecclesia romana, disputationes; disputationum miscellanearum decas; accesserunt, De satisfactione Christi; De circulo pontificio; De concordia Pauli et Jacobi in articulo justificationis; Disputationes
Turretin
https://books.google.com/books?id=KhRMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA290
one more minor
======================
BCEME - p. 61
In his polyglot New Testament (Nuremberg, 1599–1600), Elias Hutter moved Tremellius’ hypothetical Syriac translation of the comma into the body text, though he placed it in parentheses. Hutter was evidently convinced of the genuineness of the comma. Citing the prologue to the Catholic Epistles, he condemned its omission from the German and Danish translations ‘an egregious error that ought not to be passed over in silence nor excused on any account’.18 Martin Trost, who produced an edition of the Syriac text of
1 Jn for use in schools in 1621, once again excised the comma.19 However, on Hutter’s authority, the comma was retained in the Syriac editions of Gutbier (Hamburg, 1664–1667) and Leusden and Schaaf (Leiden, 1709). However, Samuel Lee once again excluded the comma from his edition, published by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1816.20
18 Hutter 1599–1600, 1:***r–v (commentary), 2:902–903 (text); cf. Borger 1987, 281–282.
19 Trost 1621, 20.
20 Gutbier 1664, 560 (text); Gutbier 1667, 43 (C6r in ‘Notae’ at the end of the volume); Leusden and Schaaf 1709, 597 (square brackets around ‘in terra’ only); Gwilliam 1905–1920, 2:64. Leusden 1670, 35–38, defended the comma as a ‘splendid and very beautiful testimony for proving the Holy Trinity’ (Testimonium luculentum & pulcherrimum pro probanda S. S. Trinitate). He explained the absence of the comma from the early translations (including the Syriac) by suggesting that these were made from corrupt Greek copies. Borger 1987, reprints the comments of Tremellius and Hutter. The Latin translation of the comma given by Tremellius is that of Beza, with one minor variant. Norton 1889, [footnote to 1 Jn 5:7, no page number], notes that the comma is also absent
from Novum Testamentum Syriacum, et Arabicum 1703, representing the Syriac text used by the Maronites, as well as the editions of the Nestorians in India (ed. Samuel Lee 1816) and Kurdistan (1852, probably an error for Perkins’ edition of 1846, DM 9029), though Norton included the comma in brackets in his translation both of the Syriac and the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of 1881. Further, see Bludau 1903b; Metzger 1977, 53.
Hutter, Elias, ed. Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi. 2 vols. Nuremberg: [Dietrich], 1599–1600.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...llius-and-elias-hutter-johannes-leusden.1210/
Das Comma Johanneum in Der Peschitta (1987)
Rykle Borger
https://ur.booksc.eu/book/49274292/e6ee24
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560760
Hutter’s Variant Font Old Testament (1577) Reveals a Few of Hebrew’s Many Facets (2010)
John J. Burn's Blog
https://johnjburnslibrary.wordpress...reveals-a-few-of-its-many-interesting-facets/
Michaelis
http://books.google.com/books?id=9WAUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14
Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Exhibiting the History and ..., Volume 2
James Townley
http://books.google.com/books?id=21CVmTzrqhEC&pg=PA348
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gls_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA224
Elias Hotter was a Protestant divine, born at Ulm in 1553, and became professor of Hebrew at Leipsic. In 1587 he published a Hebrew Bible, printed by Jacobus Lucius, at Hamburg, in folio; and remarkable for its ingenious and useful plan; the radical letters
being printed with solid and black, the servile with hollow and
white types; and the quiescent, or deficient letters, in smaller
characters above the line, thus exhibiting the radix of every word.
This Bible was afterward frequently united to Woldcr’s Polyglott,
with a new title-page prefixed, which has occasioned several mis-
takes of bibliographers, respecting the Polyglott works of our
author. After the publication of his Hebrew Bible, Hutter formed
the design of compiling a Polyglott work which should contain
several of the most important modern as well as ancient versions
of the Scriptures ; but whether the Old or the New Testament was
first committed to the press, is uncertain. Clement says he com-
menced with the New Testament. A serious difficulty, however,
presented itself; he had no copy of a Hebrew version ; and except
the Basil edition of St. Matthew’s Gospel, could obtain none cither
from public libraries, or from any private collection, though he
offered considerable sums of money for one. (Cujus copiam nec in
ulla Bibliotheca nee ab ullo hominum, eliamsi multis millibus
aureorum rcdimerc voluerim, nancisci potui.) He therefore
engaged in the work himself, and, by indefatigable application,
finished a Hebrew translation of the New Testament in the short
space of one year, (integrum Novum Testamentum, A capitc ad
ealeem in lirigtiam sanctam divino fretus auxilio, converlendum
suscepi . . . Convert!, correxi, onera domestics, ct rci familiaris
sustinui, annuo temporis spacio fwflc« absolvi.) Having com-
pleted this translation, he printed his New Testament, in twelve
languages, at Nuremberg, in 1599-1 COO, in two vols. fol.
(continues)
============
Wolfius
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA295
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...llius-and-elias-hutter-johannes-leusden.1210/
Das Comma Johanneum in Der Peschitta (1987)
Rykle Borger
https://ur.booksc.eu/book/49274292/e6ee24
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560760
Hutter’s Variant Font Old Testament (1577) Reveals a Few of Hebrew’s Many Facets (2010)
John J. Burn's Blog
https://johnjburnslibrary.wordpress...reveals-a-few-of-its-many-interesting-facets/
Michaelis
http://books.google.com/books?id=9WAUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14
Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Exhibiting the History and ..., Volume 2
James Townley
http://books.google.com/books?id=21CVmTzrqhEC&pg=PA348
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gls_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA224
Elias Hotter was a Protestant divine, born at Ulm in 1553, and became professor of Hebrew at Leipsic. In 1587 he published a Hebrew Bible, printed by Jacobus Lucius, at Hamburg, in folio; and remarkable for its ingenious and useful plan; the radical letters
being printed with solid and black, the servile with hollow and
white types; and the quiescent, or deficient letters, in smaller
characters above the line, thus exhibiting the radix of every word.
This Bible was afterward frequently united to Woldcr’s Polyglott,
with a new title-page prefixed, which has occasioned several mis-
takes of bibliographers, respecting the Polyglott works of our
author. After the publication of his Hebrew Bible, Hutter formed
the design of compiling a Polyglott work which should contain
several of the most important modern as well as ancient versions
of the Scriptures ; but whether the Old or the New Testament was
first committed to the press, is uncertain. Clement says he com-
menced with the New Testament. A serious difficulty, however,
presented itself; he had no copy of a Hebrew version ; and except
the Basil edition of St. Matthew’s Gospel, could obtain none cither
from public libraries, or from any private collection, though he
offered considerable sums of money for one. (Cujus copiam nec in
ulla Bibliotheca nee ab ullo hominum, eliamsi multis millibus
aureorum rcdimerc voluerim, nancisci potui.) He therefore
engaged in the work himself, and, by indefatigable application,
finished a Hebrew translation of the New Testament in the short
space of one year, (integrum Novum Testamentum, A capitc ad
ealeem in lirigtiam sanctam divino fretus auxilio, converlendum
suscepi . . . Convert!, correxi, onera domestics, ct rci familiaris
sustinui, annuo temporis spacio fwflc« absolvi.) Having com-
pleted this translation, he printed his New Testament, in twelve
languages, at Nuremberg, in 1599-1 COO, in two vols. fol.
(continues)
============
Wolfius
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA295
Last edited: