Subject: Florentine Council, Vaticanus and Latinization - Erasmus, Brugensis and more


The thought of collating this material came from this Facebook discussion:

Robert Truelove quotes John Owen

"Arise out of copies apparently corrupted, like that of Beza in Luke and that in the Vatican boasted of by Huntley the Jesuit, which Lucas Brugensis affirms to have been changed by the Vulgar Latin, and which was written and corrected, as Erasmus says, about the [time of the] council of Florence, when an agreement was patched up between the Greeks and Latins."

Earlier textualcritcism forum discussions:

Here I was working with the John Owen quote given by Robert Truelove:

[TC-Alternate-list] Vaticanus history - Erasmus, Huntley, Brugensis, Walton, Owen
Steven Avery - Oct 11, 2008

... First Huntly. Finding the Huntly material might be difficult, although it truly would be interesting to see how the Jesuits boasted of the MS in the 1500s. Apparently this is James Huntley Gordon ...

Another interesting question is how Brugensis "affirms (Vaticanus) to have been changed by the Vulgar Latin". Likely this would mean the later correctors. Brugensis, like Huntly, might use Vaticanus as a support for the Vulgate readings against the Majority Greek since Brugensis was interested in revising the Clementine Vulgate. And thus he would bypass the many cases where the Vaticanus has its own readings against the Vulgate and the Greek Majority text. It took a whole new radical overhaul of textual theory, led by Hort over a group of Revisors, when he wasn't going to a seance, to allow for those independentista readings to have any assumed authority. (An interesting note leading up to that coup was the Tischendorf King James Bible edition showing Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus variants, where they weren't too much in the realm of obvious blunders.)

The third part from Owen is about Erasmus, who Owen says about Vaticanus - "written and corrected ... about the council of Florence, when an agreement was patched up between the Greeks and Latins".

Is this correct ("written") about Erasmus. How could that be with an uncial ? Or is Owen misreading Erasmus ? The Council of Florence is mentioned prominently in the article by Sightler.

[textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
K. Martin Heide - June 9, 2007

Erasmus believed, by mistake, in addition - and that may have been the reason why he was very reluctant to inspect the Vaticanus-readings more closely - that the Codex Vaticanus was tampered with after the Council of Florence, 1435. Sepulveda argued that this is totally wrong; Erasmus, in turn, agreed in so far, that he knew of this idea only second-hand, but nevertheless that did not convince him of the Codex Vaticanus ... so, nothing was changed.
[textualcriticism] Franciscus Lucas Brugensis and Vaticanus
Philip Maertens - Algarve, Portugal - Nov, 4, 2012
hilip Maertens - Nov, 2012

There exist another digital copy at copies have their imperfections.
The copy on the Spanish site lacks pages 320-321 while pages 314-315 are duplicated. Also interesting to note that page 204 reads 205.
The copy on the German site, if it doesn't lack pages, has a lot more duplicated: p. 72-79; p. 282-293; p. 408-429.
The Spanish copy occupies less space on disk but the German one is easier to read.
The German site is mentioned elsewhere, this should be the one:

Notationes in sacra Biblia : quibus, variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur


The helpful expert on Lucas Brugensis is Philip Maertens:

Philip Maertens

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (première partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (deuxième partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le Codex Vaticanus



Johann Melchior Goeze

Fortsetzung der ausführlicheren Vertheidigung (1768)
(p. 56-58 is referenced in Michaelis, it may have the 365 readings)


Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791)

This comes up in Michaelis, here are examples:

Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 2 Part 1, 4th ed -
(1793 German) (translated English 1823)
Johann David Michaelis

Sepulveda and response to Foedus cum Graecis, Goeze reference

Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2, Part 2
(German written c. 1780 .. Eng edition 1802)
Johann David Michaelis

27- The possibility that Greek manufcripts in Alexandria were altered from the Latin no one can deny. Even as early as the time of Origen single alterations might have taken place, for the learned father in a passaage quoted by Wetstein in his note to Matth. viii. 28. ....p. 659
Michaelis and Codex Laudianus summarized, along with other scholarship:

The Sacraments: An Inquiry Into the Nature of the Symbolic Institutions of the Christian Religion, Usually Called the Sacraments (1844)
Robert Halley

Horne says ... "..This manuscript is of great value: Michaelis pronounces it to be indispensable to every one who would examine the important question, whether the Codices Graeco-Latini have been corrupted from the Latin; and adds, that it was this manuscript which convinced him that this charge was without foundation." On the other hand, Wetstein says ... Griesbach .. Michaelis ... Woide

Wetstein info, has my quote on Latinization from way back

"...The remarkable thing about Wetstein, is that after 21 years of carefully collating and studying manuscripts, he reversed his position on the newly forming text-critical canon, which was gaining popularity among German critics and Protestant ideologues ..."
denouncing some of the most ancient and valuable MSS. as altered and corrupted from the Latin Version, and as possessing no higher authority, and lending no farther sanction to those readings in which they agree with the Latin, than the Latin would have conferred without their assistance
[TC-Alternate-list] Wetstein switches to Byz. text-type
Steven Avery - Sept 1, 2008


Additional references planned here are from Richard Laurence, Tregelles, Hort and Henk de Jonge.

Remember, too that there are various doubts as to whether Vaticanus is really a fourth century ms and whether with its washing and overwriting and other issues it is unchanged from .. whenever it was first written. The Latinization issue thus does not exist in a vacuum.

The textual critics like K. Martin Heide would find it hard to reconsider the fourth century date (look at the resistances on Sinaiticus, where the late production is clear-cut.). This is true even though writings from men like Michaelis and Bernard Janin Sage will point out that the terminus post quem is often a bit dicey to declare, as any good calligraphist can emulate an earlier writing style.