« ÖncekiDevam »
Errors of the Printed Edition.
319 question that the work has been performed throughout in a careless and unsatisfactory manner.
The grounds on which we have arrived at this conclusion are furnished by the preface of Vercellone, the editor, to whom the work was confided after the decease of Cardinal Mai. From this preface it appears that when the whole of the Old and New Testament was printed, Mai carefully revised the work from first to last. A person was employed to read to him the printed edition whilst he examined the MS, and noted down the errors. Years were spent in this work of revision, as the multiplicity of affairs in which the cardinal was occupied, allowed him only a few hours a week to devote to literary engagements. As the result of this examination we are informed that an innumerable amount of errors came to light-a-fact which proves beyond all question the carelessness with which the work, had been originally executed.
It now became a serious question how to remedy these innumerable errors. After giving his careful attention to the subject, Cardinal. Mai decided on adopting a threefold plan. 1. He thought that certain mistakes might be corrected by erasing the superfluous letters, and supplying those that were deficient with a pen and ink. This was accordingly done by persons connected
+ with the Vatican Library. But to avoid the danger of mistakes on the part of these correctors, it was resolved to add an index of these errata at the end of each volume. 2. There were many errors too bad to be corrected in this manner. Cardinal Mai determined to cancel the leaves containing such errors and print them afresh; but died before carrying out his plan. It was executed by his successor in the work from written instructions found after his decease. 3. Lastly, there remained more places in which the printed work differed in a slight degree from the MS. For example, in some cases slight typographical errors were found, a wrong letter, or accent, or other diacritical signs. In others the editor had omitted to distinguish what was a primâ and a secundâ manu, &c. · Whilst again, in other cases, the peculiar orthography of the MS. had not been sufficiently attended to. · As to all these errors of the third class, the present editor informs us he has at great labour corrected, in the lists of errata, the more important ones, leaving the remainder to be amended by the learned into whose hands the work may come.
Such are the candid admissions made by the present editor, as to the manner in which this most important work was executed. It cannot be denied that a great want of critical exactness has marked the publication, from first to last. It was printed in a slovenly manner; and then very inadequate means were employed to remedy the numerous errors that came tol light. The conse: quence is, it is impossible to regard the work as thoroughly trust: worthy. One cannot resist the impression that mistakes are here and there still left uneorrected. Indeed Tischendorf has already pointed out five or six errors in the book.*it And in other plades, where the published collations of the MS. all agrees the printed edition gives a different reading, 4.00 -11,1V 3 ptt kb
With the mingnifioent work lying before us, let us now briefly glance at some of the more remarkable readings of the codexo
In the song of the angels, in the fields of Bethlehem (Lake it 1), we observe it reads with the Alexandrian MS. and the Vulgate, Evdokias, i.e. 'peace on earth, to men of good will instead of 'on earth peace, good will to men, as the commonl text has itu Here it is opposed to almost all the other authorities. 2-314179,47
The common text in Mark iii. 29, is ‘in danger of eternali con demnation; but the Vatican, and a few kindred MSS. read atw zou αμαρτηματος, ,
' eternal offence,' or 'sinis s -! I trielt - 470171004) In Luke viji. 54, the whole clause, ekßalw z&wi navracikat, and he put them all out,'', is omitted./. This was inoxidoubt a blunder of the scribe.
11 -"!, Domingos seis met 67 al : The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer fMattpi.18), is wanting in the MS. So are also some clauses in the same form of prayer, in the other Evangelist (Luke xi. 2), where it reads as follows: “O Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom i comedGivet 'us day by day, our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for wet ' also forgive every one that is indebted to us.- 1 And lead us not ‘into temptation. 11011 :, in in molti 11 tu v01
The concluding verses of Mark's gospel (xvi. Il-20), it is well known, are wanting in the Vatican MS2. But the editor states, what we were not previously aware of, that after the wotds spoßovvto yap, verse 8, a whole page is left blank - He adds, truly, hic est res notissima. It proves unquestionably that the copyist knew of the additional paragraph, perhaps had itrin his exemplar ; but from some cause omitted to inserti italt tv
A remarkable reading occurs John i. 18; a reading strongly confirmed by other ancient MSS. and versions. Instead of μονογενης νιος, the Vatican MS. I has μονογενης θεος! Tire verse then reads as followsNo man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten God, who dwelletłr in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him. As the two words are exceedingly similar when written in the contracted form usually adopted in the Uncial MSS. (YS and Ox), the one might easily be mistaken ter the other by a careless scribe. The reading of the Vatican
* Novum Testam, Gr. Editio Sept. Lips. Funf. und Sechste Lieferung. 1858.11
Remarkable Readings of the MS.
321 codex is also found in the Uncial MSS., C* and L, as well as in the Peshito Syrine, and some other versions: Alivast innmber of the early Fathers, tob, are cited in support of the new reading! (See Tregelles, Printed Text of New Testament, p. 281.),
In the account of the impotent man, the whole of the disputed portion is wanting. l The MS. commences the fifth verse, immes diately after the words tuplwv, xwlwv, Snpuv (John: v. 3). But the editor, according to his usual plin, has given the whole passage just as we have it in the common text'; stating in a rote the reading of the MS. itself. 51 31 -171033 4,1% to prilir.
The disputed passage of the adulterous woman, John vii. 534 vüid 12, is wholly wanting in this ancient MS., 'as it is also in many other first class codices and versions. But, since we have the express testimony of Augustine, that in the fourth century it formed a part of the gemine text of John's gospel, it will require much stronger evidence than that of the Vatican MS. to convince us that it is an interpolation.si je wil.
The 37th verse of Aats viii. is also absent here; but in this case a large majority of MSS. confirm the reading of the Vatican.
In the famous passage, Acts xx. 28, 'to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, this ancient copy agrees with the common - text, and the vast majority of cursive MSS. The other ancient uncials A, C and D, contain the reading church of the Lord' (TOV 'Kuprov). It is well known that doubt has been cast on the reading of the Vatican MS. in this passage. It is satisfactory therefore to find that the testimony of Dr. Tregelles, who directed his attention particularly to this passage wheñ at Rome, is eonfirmed by the printed text.'!
The only other reading of the Vatican text, which our space will allow us to notice, is the remarkable one found in 1 Peter iii. 16, where, instead of the common reading “Sanctify the Lord God,' this copy reads Sanetify the Lord Christ' (KuPLOV DE TOV Xplotov ayaoems). This is one of the clearest testimonies to the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ to be found in the whole New Testament, It occurs in a citation from Isaiah viii, 12, 13, in which the Apostle substitutes the above expression for the words 'Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; thus proving that in the New Testament the former is the equivalent of the latter in the Old. The reading Xplotov is supported by overwhelming evidence; for it is found also in A, O, besides some cursive MSS., and in the Vulgate, the ancient Syriac, and several other ancient versions. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles adopt the corrected reading.
Such are some of the more remarkable passages in which this famous codex varies from the text in common use. It now remains to mention one or two characteristic features of the MS.
which the publication of its text will be the means of making generally known.
One thing which is very observable, in turning over the pages of this magnificent edition, is the vast number of mistakes which the original copyist has committed that is to say, the very frequent substitution of one word for another, as the result of sheer carelessness. There is a notion very widely diffused amongst students of the Greek Testament that these most ancient MSS. of the sacred volume, so beautifully written in large uncial letters, are as much distinguished by their correctness as they are by their antiquity. The publication of the text of the famous Vatican codex is likely to seatter to the winds all such enthusiastic ideas, for we do not hesitate to say that the mistakes of the transcriber of this ancient MS. of the fourth century are quite as numerous as those found in the despised cursives of the twelfth and following centuries.
As indisputable instances of this alleged carelessness of the original writer we would refer to the following passages:--In Mark i. 24, the MS. reads Te nulv Kal Ov; instead of oot. editor directs attention to this error in a marginal note. In Mark xii, 13, the word Teloç is written otados, This is an evident blunder, as no such word exists in the Greek language. Similarly the word nuetepov occurs, Luke xvi. 12, instead of wherepov, making absolute nonsense of the passage.
The following strange syntax is found at Acts iv. 25, O TOV πατρος ημων δια πνευματος αγιου στοματος Δαυειδ, κ.τ.λ. Νοne can suppose this a genuine reading; it is clearly the result of carelessness. In 1 Peter ii. 1, we find the word povovs for plovouc. This is also an evident blunder of the transcriber. The most strenuous advocate for antiquity could never suppose that the Apostle Peter here enjoins the saints to lay aside murders, since it would imply that at that period they practised them. An equally gross blunder occurs 2 Peter ii. 13, where the MS. reads -Αδικουμενοι μισθον αδικιας, “ suffering unjustly as to the reward of iniquity,' instead of KojuOVLEVOL meo lov adekias, receiving the reward of iniquity. Another mistake occurs in the same verse αγαπαις for απαταις, a reading which it is impossible to defend.
The same remark applies to John's third epistle, verse 3, where we find μαρτυρουν for μαρτυρουντων. The scribe laid down his pen on writing the first v, and on resuming it forgot to finish the word. A most singular arrangement of words occurs at 1 Cor. i. 2. After θεου follow, ηγιασμενοις εν Χριστώ Ιησου, τη ουση εν Κορινθω, κλητοις αγιοις, κ.τ.λ. At Philip. ii. 1, is another mistake, ει τις σπλαγχνα for ει τινα σπλαγχνα. Another singular error occurs at Rom. xiv. 18, where the MS. reads-COKIMONS TOUS
Blunders of the Copyist.'
-323 av punois, instend of dokquos, K.T.). In Jude, also, at verse 21, we find the word τηρησωμεν for τηρησατε. Both: these variations evidently arose from enrelessness on the part of the copyist, since they make' nonsense of the passages where they occur.
One more instance is deserving of notice, on account of its bearing upon the famous passage, Rom. v. 1. At Gal. vi. 10, the Vatican codex reads εχωμεν instead of εχομεν. - In this case the variation is clearly a blunder of the copyist, since no other MS., so far as we are aware, agrees with it. Too much stress, therefore, should not be laid on the reading of the Vatican in the other case.
But the most numerous class of blunders with which we have met are those arising from the interchange of the personal pronouns. For example, at 2 Cor. i. 6, we read 7 EXTS υμων instead of ....nuwv. Again, at verse 21, viac is found in two places for muas. In the fifth ehnpter (v. 12), we find ημίν
and throughout the copy. It should be added that in all the instances of mistakes which we have noticed, as well as in those that follow, there is no room to question the correctness of the printed text, as the editor expressly assures us that he has in those places faithfully copied the Codex Vaticanus.
Notwithstanding the numerous errors we have already referred to, the omissions of the copyist still remain to be noticed ; and this fault, of passing by what should be inserted, is undoubtedly the characteristic feature of this ancient MS. In many of these instances the scribe has accidentally left out a word or clause, and then added it in the margin, or placed it between the lines, right over its place in the text. For example, he has omitted Thu yuvaika at Mark vi. 17, but afterwards added it in the margin. At Mark x. 29, the first evēKev'is left out before you, and added in the margin. The same remark applies to ovdev in Mark xv. 4. In Luke xix. 25, the word Kupie was originally overlooked, but it is inserted over the other words by the same band. Two omissions of similar kind are found in the first chapter of John's gospel. The words twv avopwtwv are omitted in verse 4, and the clause ovde Ek el nuatoç avèpoc in verse 13. Both mistakes are corrected, apparently by the original writer, in the margin. Several other omissions of the same nature occur in this gospel ; as of To TvEvua in chap. iii. 31; padu in chap. iv. 3. In each instance the
Now in all these examples nothing can be plainer than that the transcriber of the Vatican codex accidentally, and by oversight, omitted to insert the words in question ; and then, either discovered his error at the time, or else on reading through the MS. observed the deficiencies. In some cases half a verse is thus left out, and afterwards supplied in the margin, as at Acts xxiii. 28,