OLUME
ONE: ANALYSIS
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
iii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
iv
General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . .
1
1
. Textual Analysis in Antiquity and Its Application to the Old Testament
. . .
.
3
8
2
. New Testament Textual Analysis by Greek Fathers . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. 93
3
. New Testament Te
xtual Analysis by Latin Fathers . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3
4
. New Testament Textual Variants Discussed by Multiple Fath
ers . . . . . . . .
181
5
. The Purpose and Application of Textual Analysis in the Early Church .
. .
.
231
6
. New
Testament Textual Criticism, Ancient and Modern
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
327
VOLUME
TWO: TEXTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
335
Catalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
344
Additional Texts . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
548
Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
578
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
621

In his introduction to New Testament textual criticism, Eberhard

Nestle stated a
desideratum, later repeated by Bruce Metzger, for a collection, arranged according to
time
and locality, of all passages in which the church fathers appeal to N
ew
T
estament
manuscript evidence.  Nestle began
this
project with a list of references; Metzger
continued the work by examining the explicit references to variants by Origen and
Jerome
and expanding Nestle‟s list.  This dissertation picks up where Metzger left off,
expanding and evaluating the list.  The purpose is to contribute to
patristics and N
ew
T
estament
textual criticism in two ways: first, by providing a helpful catalogue o
f
patristic texts that refer to variant readings; and second, by analyzing the collected data
with a focus on the text
-
critical criteria used by the fathers.
The dissertation begins by considering the social and historical backdrop of the
early church,
es
pecially
textual scholarship in antiquity and its patristic application to the
O
ld
T
estament
.  The explicit references to variants are then examined
, first by individual
father (organized by Greek and Latin), then by variant (for the va
riants discussed by
Amy M. Donaldson
multiple authors).  This information is then summarized in terms of
literary genres in
which the references occur and the criteria used to evaluate the variants.  After a
general
assessment of N
ew
T
estament
textual scholarsh
ip by the early church (including
recensional and scribal activity), patristic textual criticism is compared to modern
practice to assess to what extent the church fathers engaged in textual criticism and what
insights we can gain from them today.
The sec
ond
volume
contains the
c
atalogue
of explicit references to variants (each
entry includes the variants and their textual evidence in modern critical editions, the
Greek or Latin excerpt and English translation, and a brief discussion of
the context).  
Passages that discuss textual problems but are not
explicit references to variant
s
are
collected
separate
ly
.  In an appendix, the lists by Nestle and Metzger are compared
alongside the
list of
texts
in the
c
a
talogue
, followed by another appendix on Bede
, and a
third appendix
containing
a brief biography and bibliography
f
or each
father
cited in the
catalogue

Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it seem
s that it takes an entire
network
to
produce a dissertation.  I would like to thank the following people for their support,
assistance, and patience. First, my dissertation director, Brian E. Daley, and my readers,
David
E.
Aune, Robin Darling Young, and f
rom Bethel University (MN), Michael W.
Holmes.  
Also
, the Theology Department at the University of Notre Dame
(especially the
successive Directors of Graduate Studies
during
the tenure of my
dissertation,
Joseph P.
Wawrykow
and
J.
Matthew Ashley, and
the P
hD Administrative Assistant,
Carolyn
Gamble)
, my professors
, mentors,
and colleagues there, and the circulation staff and
monitors at Hesburgh Library.  
My thanks also go to the supportive community of family and friends, both at
home and online, who have
sustained me through this long endeavor
since I left South
Bend for the greener pastures, or forests, of Oregon
: my extended family at Christ
Community Church; my Dissertation Accountability Network
, and those who have
encouraged me by e
-
mail
; my proofrea
der extraordinaire, Marybeth Cieplinski; the
library staff at George Fox Seminary, especially Charlie Kam
i
los and Mik
el
l
Benham
;
and, most of all, my parents.

  book, in pdf format, authored, one of the most important studies that highlighted many of the interpretative references of the New Testament, and provided many readings of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers.

The first part of the book begins with the analytical part. Here we spoke about the New Testament and the analysis of the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers. It also presents various analyzes and discussions for a number of parents. It tells us about the purpose of interpreting texts and interpreting them in the early fathers, The second part of the book is devoted to the textual part, which lists a number of important texts and writings