Steven Avery
Administrator
Grantley has the only Latinization issue around Montfortianus - it definitely exists around Vaticanus and other mss.
=================================
Check how the Vaticanus inquiry is covered - especially the one in the 1520s
Bombasius Sepulveda
Bombace is pretty good - The 365 by Sepulveda is not mentioned except that something was used for edition 5.
RGA - p. 83
The 1527 edition integrated variants from the Complutensian edition, while the only source for further corrections in the 1535 edition was
codex Vaticanus (GA ms B).
p. 90-91
In June 1521, Paolo Bombace had also confirmed to him in a letter that the comma was lacking from “an extremely old codex in the Vatican library” (BAV ms Vat. gr. 1209 = GA ms B), as Erasmus likewise reports.40 Against all this evidence, Erasmus openly doubted the value of the evidence supplied by ps.-Jerome’s prologue.
40 Paolo Bombace to Erasmus, Epist. 1213, 18 June 1521 (Opus Epist. 4:530; Correspondence 8:248); de Jonge, 1980, 389; Coogan, 1992, 107.
p. 161-162
Sandius reported that the comma was missing from the body text of the manuscript in the Franciscan monastery in Antwerp mentioned by Erasmus. He cited the absence of the comma from Codex Vaticanus (B) and from the seven other codices Erasmus had consulted for his first edition of the New Testament.27
p. 210
More damning was the failure of Stunica to produce a manuscript supporting the reading. “Neither could Sepulveda, or the Spanish monks who next undertook the controversy, find one Greek manuscript, which here made against Erasmus.”152
152 Newton, 1785, 5:523
p. 371
Annotationes - Bombasius
Additionally, Paolo Bombace, a learned and honest man, made a literal transcription of this passage at my request from a very ancient codex in the Vatican Library, in which the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit is not mentioned.3 (If the authority of antiquity impresses you, the book was extremely old; if you are impressed by the authority of the pope, it is his library from which this witness was sought.)
3 The information on the Vatican codex inspected by Bombace is mentioned in Erasmus’ Apologia ad Annotationes Stunicæ (ASD IX.2:256); de Jonge, in ASD IX.2:257, notes the letter from Bombace containing this information (Epist. 1213) was dated 18 June 1521.
============================
p. 162
Sandius .. also asserted that the prologue to the Catholic Epistles was not written by Jerome, thus removing an important piece of evidence cited by defenders of the comma.28 (contesting)
28 Sandius, 1669, 382-385.
p. 383 At præfatio illa non est genuina Hieronymi; nec legitur vel in operibus Hieronymi, vel in Bibliis vulgatis correctis.
p. 65
Payne Canart
than the
comma, which is unattested until the fourteenth century, and even then under
Latin influence.112
One of the i
=================================
Check how the Vaticanus inquiry is covered - especially the one in the 1520s
Bombasius Sepulveda
Bombace is pretty good - The 365 by Sepulveda is not mentioned except that something was used for edition 5.
RGA - p. 83
The 1527 edition integrated variants from the Complutensian edition, while the only source for further corrections in the 1535 edition was
codex Vaticanus (GA ms B).
p. 90-91
In June 1521, Paolo Bombace had also confirmed to him in a letter that the comma was lacking from “an extremely old codex in the Vatican library” (BAV ms Vat. gr. 1209 = GA ms B), as Erasmus likewise reports.40 Against all this evidence, Erasmus openly doubted the value of the evidence supplied by ps.-Jerome’s prologue.
40 Paolo Bombace to Erasmus, Epist. 1213, 18 June 1521 (Opus Epist. 4:530; Correspondence 8:248); de Jonge, 1980, 389; Coogan, 1992, 107.
p. 161-162
Sandius reported that the comma was missing from the body text of the manuscript in the Franciscan monastery in Antwerp mentioned by Erasmus. He cited the absence of the comma from Codex Vaticanus (B) and from the seven other codices Erasmus had consulted for his first edition of the New Testament.27
p. 210
More damning was the failure of Stunica to produce a manuscript supporting the reading. “Neither could Sepulveda, or the Spanish monks who next undertook the controversy, find one Greek manuscript, which here made against Erasmus.”152
152 Newton, 1785, 5:523
p. 371
Annotationes - Bombasius
Additionally, Paolo Bombace, a learned and honest man, made a literal transcription of this passage at my request from a very ancient codex in the Vatican Library, in which the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit is not mentioned.3 (If the authority of antiquity impresses you, the book was extremely old; if you are impressed by the authority of the pope, it is his library from which this witness was sought.)
3 The information on the Vatican codex inspected by Bombace is mentioned in Erasmus’ Apologia ad Annotationes Stunicæ (ASD IX.2:256); de Jonge, in ASD IX.2:257, notes the letter from Bombace containing this information (Epist. 1213) was dated 18 June 1521.
============================
p. 162
Sandius .. also asserted that the prologue to the Catholic Epistles was not written by Jerome, thus removing an important piece of evidence cited by defenders of the comma.28 (contesting)
28 Sandius, 1669, 382-385.
p. 383 At præfatio illa non est genuina Hieronymi; nec legitur vel in operibus Hieronymi, vel in Bibliis vulgatis correctis.
p. 65
Payne Canart
than the
comma, which is unattested until the fourteenth century, and even then under
Latin influence.112
One of the i
Last edited: