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

[Steven Avery]

The thought of collating this material came from this Facebook discussion on ConfessionalBibliology

Robert Truelove quotes John Owen
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConfessionalBibliology/permalink/1779724698913785/

"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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/2169

... 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 ...

Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature by John McClintock,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZGY9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA927
James Huntley, an eminent Scotch Jesuit, was born in 1543. Ho was educated at Rome, and entered the order of Jesuits Sept. 20, 1563. For nearly fifty years he taught Hebrew and theology at Rome, Paris, and Bordeaux. He travelled also, as missionary, through England and Scotland, where his zeal for making converts to the Roman Catholic Church caused him to be twice put in prison. He died at Paris, April 16, 1620. Gordon was a learned and skillful man, and very zealous for his order. He wrote Controversiarurn christianae fidei Epitome, 3 parts (i, Limoges, 1612 ; ii, Paris ; ill, reprinted with the two others, Cologne, 1020, 8vo). See Alcgambe, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatia Jesu ; Hoefer, Nouv Biog. Generale, xxi, 280.

Owen separately points out that Huntly supports the Vulgate Latin OT over the Hebrew Bible.

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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/3214

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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/7580
Philip Maertens - Nov, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7585

There exist another digital copy at http://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/10067?mode=fullBoth 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
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10984740_00001.html

===================

The helpful expert on Lucas Brugensis is Philip Maertens:

Philip Maertens
https://independent.academia.edu/PhilipMaertens/Papers

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (premi?re partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (deuxi?me partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le Codex Vaticanus
https://www.academia.edu/2086500/Franciscus_Lucas_Brugensis_et_le_Codex_Vaticanus

===================

EARLIER DISCUSSIONS

Johann Melchior Goeze (1717-1786)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Melchior_Goeze

Fortsetzung der ausf?hrlicheren Vertheidigung (1768)
Goeze
http://books.google.com/books?id=EyQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56
(p. 56-58 is referenced in Michaelis, it may have the 365 readings)

===================

Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Michaelis

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
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kis-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=52suAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA657

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=1r0PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA605

 

[Steven Avery]

The thought of collating this material came from this Facebook discussion on ConfessionalBibliology

John Owen's treatise "Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text" he gives a list of principles for performing textual criticism. His 9th point is to reject readings that...
"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."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConfessionalBibliology/permalink/1779724698913785/

==================

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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/2169


[textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
K. Martin Heide - June 9, 2007
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/3214

[textualcriticism] Franciscus Lucas Brugensis and Vaticanus
Philip Maertens - Algarve, Portugal - Nov, 4, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/7580
Philip Maertens - Nov, 2012
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/7585

The German site is mentioned elsewhere, this should be the one:

Notationes in sacra Biblia : quibus, variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10984740_00001.html

===================

The helpful expert on Lucas Brugensis is Philip Maertens:

Philip Maertens
https://independent.academia.edu/PhilipMaertens/Papers

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (premi?re partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le texte de l'Ancien Testament (deuxi?me partie)

Franciscus Lucas Brugensis et le Codex Vaticanus
https://www.academia.edu/2086500/Franciscus_Lucas_Brugensis_et_le_Codex_Vaticanus


===================

EARLIER DISCUSSIONS

Johann Melchior Goeze (1717-1786)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Melchior_Goeze

Fortsetzung der ausf?hrlicheren Vertheidigung (1768)
Goeze
http://books.google.com/books?id=EyQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56
(p. 56-58 is referenced in Michaelis, it may have the 365 readings)

===================

Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Michaelis

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
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kis-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=52suAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA657

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=1r0PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA605

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
http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/AE/Wetstein3.html

Porter
"...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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/3473

===================

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.

==============

 

[Steven Avery]

Philip Maertens

Conversation with Phiip Maertens, of Algarve, Portugal, a fine scholar. Mildly shortened:

Aug 24, to Sept 7, 2017.

Non-controversial, simply scholarly inquiry, so there should be no problem sharing the information.

=================

2017 discussion about the John Owen quote on Codex Vaticanus, referencing Brugensis and Huntley and latinization

Steven Avery:
Hi Philip, You have a lot of fine material about Lucas Brugensis and Vaticanus.
Can you help check the accuracy of this quotation from John Owen?

"... 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."

The quote is from John Owen (1616-1683) quite an important scholar of the era, and careful on his facts. The part that is especially interesting is Huntley (James Huntley-Gordon) and Brugensis, who are writing after Erasmus.

Owen wrote that in:

Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew & Greek Texts of Scripture
Volume 16 in The Works of John Owen
https://books.google.com/books?id=nSVKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA366 (1853 edition)

The original 1659 title was:

Of the divine originall, authority, self-evidencing light, and povver of the Scriptures. With an answer to that enquiry, how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God. Also a vindication of the purity and integrity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testament; in some considerations on the prolegomena, & appendix to the late Biblia polyglotta. Whereunto are subjoyned some exercitations about the nature and perfection of the Scripture, the right of interpretation, internall Light, revelation, &c.

Which is up at EEBO:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?cc=eebo;c=eebo;idno=a90280.0001.001;node=A90280.0001.001%3A5.3;seq=233;submit=Go;type=simple;vid=170488;q1=Brugensis;page=root;view=text

The references said to be from Brugensis and James Gordon of Huntley (Huntly) are fascinating. Any help on either would be appreciated.

Since Brugensis is an area where your scholarship is world-top, that is really the one that I am asking you. However, I will include a bit from Huntley.

=====================================

Here is one book from Huntley that is online.

Controversiarum christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos epitome, Volume 1
https://books.google.com/books?id=opC8c9wbXw8C&pg=PA1

And a bio:
https://books.google.com/books?id=haFDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70

Based on the bio, everything might be in that so-called "Volume 1".

Although then you have this:

Opus chronologicum annorum seriem,
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_hqFKhDUkkaYC

James Gordon, a Jesuit, but without the "Huntley".

It is a little surprising to me that Owen calls him "Huntley" but it does seem to be the right fella. His name is given differently by different writers.

Philip Maertens:
Ok, I just had a look at the 80 something instances in which Lucas Brugensis mentions Vatican manuscripts in his "Notationes in Sacra Biblia". As you surely know, Lucas Brugensis didn't have first-hand knowledge of Codex Vaticanus. In none of the instances does he clearly affirm the Codex Vaticanus "to have been changed by the Vulgar Latin". He does note, however, similarities in readings when they occur. Interestingly, he does not have textual commentaries for Matt. xvii. 2, Mark i.38 or vii.4. I checked his Commentaries and his "Romanae Correctionis" but no mention of Codex Vaticanus. So it would seem that Owen overstates his case. Maybe he relies on Huntley? BTW, you shouldn't be surprised about Huntley. According to his dedication in the "Controversiarum christianae fidei", his full name in Latin form was Iacobus Gordonus Huntlaeus.

Steven Avery:
Thanks for the fine info! I see in your paper that Lucas Brugensis went off of information from about four other people. It would be nice if your material has translation to English. For now we will conjecture Owen overstating, and start a little Huntley search.

(Note: apparently there is no Wikipedia page for FLB, a surprise.)

Here is a bit more on general inquiry .

Do you know what references are made to the Mark ending in that era by the scholars who saw Vaticanus? I'm actually interested in any references before Birch c. 1790, any refs around FLB are fascinating. Sepulveda gave Erasmus various readings, however I do not think we have any hard evidence as to which ones.

As for Vaticanus, there are various curiosities, since it only has provenance from about 1475. There is the Latinization and Florence back-and-forth with Erasmus and Sepulveda. And it has the overwriting that has been given wildly different dates, and some other curiosities worth researching. While I am showing some of the conspiracy myths to be false (a book recently claimed the Mark ending was changed in the 1800s!), I am working on understanding the curious history.

For the papers by Philip Maertens on Brugensis, see the first post above.

Facebook 2018 PureBible discussion with Bryan Ross, inquiring into the John Owen quote:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1567201636705053/

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus Access to Vaticanus - More than Sepulveda and Bombasius?

Puritanboard
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/erasmus-and-the-vatican-codex.44581/#post-559860
Thomas2007

Frederick Nolan
"When Erasmus classified the texts into two classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus, he specified the positive grounds upon receiving the former and rejecting the latter. The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted."
An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff

Erasmus was in the service of Pope Julius II for some time either during or after the time he lived with Aldus Manutius in Italy, I don't remember the exact details at the moment. But from his annotations, which are confirmed by De Jonge, Erasmus had contact with the Vaticanus during the those years. The following is some of my notes in a lecture I did a year or so ago on the subject. Unfortunately, I didn't make very good notes as to my sources, so I would have to go back and find where this quote from De Jonge is - I can do that if it is of interest to you.

Since the Latin Vulgate came into existence in 382 AD, he characterized Greek manuscripts of this era that maintained these readings as being corrupted by Arians and Origenists. As he said: “We too came across a manuscript of this nature, and it is said that such a manuscript is still preserved in the papal library written in majuscule characters.” Dr. DeJong says of this note in Erasmus annotations: “The manuscript to which Eramus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus…designated B, Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as…inferior.” In his textual work from 1519 to 1535 Paul Bombasius and Sepulveda would provide Erasmus some 650 readings from the Vaticanus.

Erasmus: His Life and Character as Shown in His Correspondence and Works (1873)
Robert Blackley Drummond
https://books.google.com/books?id=j_1ZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA169

By far the most distinguished among the professors at the ancient University of Bologna at this time, and the only man of note whose friendship Erasmus seems to have acquired there, was Paul Bombasius, public Professor of Greek, a man of the most varied learning and the most engaging manners.12 He afterwards withdrew from the service of literature, in order to devote himself to public affairs, and removing to Rome, became secretary to Cardinal Pucci. We find him, while there, many years afterwards, assisting Erasmus in his Greek Testament, by ascertaining for him the reading of the Vatican manuscript in one or two passages of John’s First Epistle. He eventually lost his life during the sack of Rome, in the Pontificate of Clement VII., having been overtaken and killed by a party of soldiers as he was endeavouring to make his escape to the castle of St. Angelo.

12 Erasmus has noticed Bombasius in the most flattering terms in the Ciceronianus (Er. Op. i. ioio, F.), and more fully in the Adages (I. vi. i). See also Bayle.

Facebook
Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...831188881695&notif_t=group_activity&ref=notif

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus says that the Vaticanus omission affected his heavenly witnesses decision - latinization
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...s-heavenly-witnesses-decision.1634/#post-6371

 

[Steven Avery]

Snapp on the Distigmai in Vaticanus
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1661212557260#c8594027092486629058

Andrew J. Brown 8/23/2022 12:55 am
With reference to the number of textual variants from codex B, notified by Sepulveda to Erasmus in 1533, it should be observed that Erasmus himself mentions a total of 300 when referring to this subject near the beginning of his 1535 folio edition of the Greek and Latin New Testament. On sig. β3v of that volume, he states that "at the present time, certain people keep claiming that they have noted three hundred passages from the codex of the papal library, in which [passages] it agrees with our Latin Vulgate edition but disagrees with mine [i.e. with my edition or translation]": "iam nunc quidam iactitant se trecenta loca notasse ex codice pontificiae bibliothecae, in quibus ille consonat cum nostra uulgata aeditione Latina, cum mea dissonat".

(An incidental point to note here is that, when Erasmus speaks of "our" Latin Vulgate, he means the Vulgate text that was in common public use, rather than an edition which he himself had produced.)

Although Erasmus does not mention Sepulveda's name in this sentence, it seems highly probable that he has Sepulveda chiefly in mind, and that Sepulveda was the only person who had compiled such a detailed list of readings from codex B at this time. Erasmus' use of the plural, "certain people" (or "quidam"), could make it sound as if more than one person was responsible for this list, but more likely it was just his way of avoiding a direct identification of his opponent. The main point is that his total of "300 passages" is compatible with the figure of "365" cited in the printed editions of Sepulveda's letter, the only difference being that Erasmus has chosen to round the total down to the nearest hundred below. This piece of evidence tends to confirm that Sepulveda originally wrote 365 (or rather, its Latin equivalent) in his letter to Erasmus, and not 765 as suggested.

However, this does not disprove the idea that Sepulveda could have made some of the marks which are visible in codex B. The list of passages which Erasmus received could have contained just the more important points, and did not need to include every variant which Sepulveda had originally noted or marked.

Andrew J. Brown

 

[Steven Avery]

Andrew J. Brown 8/24/2022
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...howComment=1661362887181#c6325727823290627219

Apparent citations from codex B in Erasmus' Annotationes of 1535:

Mark 1: 2 "Esaia propheta" (i.e. τω ησαια τω προφητη)

Luke 10: 1 "septuaginta duos" (i.e. εβδομηκοντα δυο)

Luke 23: 46 "commendo" (i.e. παρατιθεμαι)

Acts 27: 16 καυδα

=====================================
Steven Avery8/25/2022 12:00 am
Thank you Andrew.

Cauda in Acts 27:16 has been considered to be from Vaticanus:

"In his annotations of 1535 at Acts 27:16, Erasmus cites the name of the island as “Kauda” (Cauda). Only B is known to have had that reading in his day"

A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Medieval Though the Reformation Periods (2009)
The Text of the New Testament
James Keith Elliott

A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 2

At first glance, it may seem strange that after more than two thousand years of biblical interpretation, there are still major disagreements among biblical scholars about what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures say and about how one is to read and understand them. Yet the range of interpretive...

books.google.com

Just looking at Mark 1:2, this is a famous variant, Professor Robinson has a paper that is largely on the verse.

So what would be the marker to indicate Vaticanus as the cause of the Erasmus Annotation?

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Ok, I will answer my own question, possibly.

Erasmus only placed this in the 1535 Annotations, ever the Sepulveda letter.

Not proof, but good circumstantial evidence.

==================

Andrew J. Brown8/25/2022 3:11 am
You are welcome. It should perhaps be mentioned that, in the 1535 edition of Erasmus' Annotations at Mk 1.2; Lk 10.1; Lk 23.46, he refers to the Vaticanus reading in an oblique way, citing the manuscript as supporting the Latin Vulgate but without quoting the Greek wording. For example, at Mk 1.2, he says: "Sunt qui indicent in bibliotheca uaticana haberi codicem Graecum maiusculis descriptum, qui consentiat cum latina aeditione" ("There are those who point out that, in the Vatican library, there is kept a Greek codex written in capital letters, which agrees with the Latin edition").

All four passages are marked by distigmai in the manuscript. If these markings were already present in cod. B before Sepulveda carried out his "collation", they would have made his task much easier.

==================================


There is another article, possibly TRA on Facebook on the KJB discussing the
"Roman copie"
"Rom. copie"

 

[Steven Avery]

Jesse Grenz

https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/2ad5217b-7aac-40ae-bebf-de044061dcbb/content

1.2 Provenance
As with the date of B(03), numerous places of origin have been proposed for the codex (Table 1). The earliest attempts to locate the production of B(03) centered on southern Italy, Rome, or “the west.” This, however, was largely dependent on the theory of “Latinization”—that the text of B(03) was brought into conformity with the Vulgate (see Chapter 4).34 Already, as readings from the codex were brought against the edition of Erasmus, he criticized the manuscript of being corrected toward the Latin manuscripts.35 Critics like John Mill followed this reasoning to argue that a Latin scribe (a Latino scriba) was responsible for copying B(03).36 The theory of “Latinization” developed from the fragmentary nature of the readings known to Erasmus, Mill, and Wettstein, but Andreas Birch had rejected it based on extensive collations.37 Likewise, Hug’s study on the antiquity of B(03) pushed the date of the codex to a time before Jerome’s Vulgate. It is noteworthy, therefore, that Hort, having demonstrated the superiority of B(03), also believed in the Roman provenance. The arguments for such a conclusion include the apparently Western orthography in words like ιϲακ or ιϲτραηλ(ειτηϲ), the word-order χριϲτοϲ ιηϲουϲ in Paul, and the shared numerical divisions in B(03) with Codex Amiatinus and other Vulgate manuscripts. 39 Amphoux attempts to account for the clear similarities between B(03) and the Vulgate, while also acknowledging a connection to Athanasius of Alexandria, by placing the production around 340, shortly after Athanasius fled to Rome.40 Finally, although Caspar René Gregory seems to prefer Caesarea as the place of origin, he mentions in passing that the parchment appears to be western, but leaves this unsubstantiated (see Chapter 2).41

34 See also Amphoux, “Les circonstances,” 162–164.

35 For example, Annotations on Luke 10:1; cf. Krans, “Erasmus,” 463–469.

36 Mill, Novum Testamentum, 163.

37 The problem was exaggerated since the readings sent to Erasmus were often selected to show B(03)’s agreement with the Vulgate against his edition. Likewise, Wettstein had apparently been refused access to readings from Richard Bentley, which he had hoped would invalidate the codex altogether. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum, 1:24; Birch, Quatuor Evangelia, xxiii; Michaelis, Introduction, 346–348; Pisano, “L’histoire,” 109.

38 See also Amphoux, “Les circonstances,” 163–164.

39 See, however, Giurisato’s more recent comparison of both early and late numeration in B(03) with that of Amiatinus. Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 264–267; Giurisato, “Atti degli Apostoli,” 211–227.

40 Amphoux, “Les circonstances,” 157–176.

41 Gregory, Canon and Text, 345