Facebook
. Vaticanus Omissions . The Vatican Manuscript (1859) Orlando T. Dobbin http://books.google.com/books?id=h6tlq6AMUgAC&pg=PA614 p. 614-629 Many excellent articles were written in this period that...
www.facebook.com
Vaticanus Omissions
.
The Vatican Manuscript (1859)
Orlando T. Dobbin
http://books.google.com/books?id=h6tlq6AMUgAC&pg=PA614
p. 614-629
Many excellent articles were written in this period that understood the nature of the Vaticanus corruptions.
.
===============
.
In 1858 the British Quarterly Review, edited by Robert Vaughan, had looked at the Angelo Mai work, and pointed out the excellence of the materials used by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza
.
"we are strongly disposed to think that much of the contempt which modern critics have expressed for the common Stephanie and Elzevir text of the Greek Testament, is unmerited and unjust.".
.
===============
.
Titan Magazine Vol XXIV (August, 1859)
editor George Gilfillan
The Vatican Manuscript
http://books.google.com/books?id=vHEEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA138
p. 138-155
.
The Titan article, which looked at Vaticanus dating as well (a topic that could use a revisit to see how solid is the 4th century dating) points out that Vaticanus is a:
.
"compendious New Testament ... curt and compendious text"
.
"
Omission is the grand characteristic of the document exclusion the rule enforced with pitiless uniformity. The editor of the original was evidently a person enamoured of that 'brevity which is the soul of wit.' He seems to have taken a full copy of the New Testament text into his hands, and to have ostracized into ruthless banishment all that did not suit his taste or meet his views. ... A compendium is extremely useful, if called and universally known as a compendiuin, but very injurious if applied and reasoned upon as the adequate representative of the document it only compressed within more narrow limits. And the document before us has the brevity of a compendium, with faults that distinguish it unfavourably from a compendium correctly made. That a fair general idea... about one twenty-fifth part of the whole New Testament is cut off from the reader without any pre-intimation of the process of excision. But when the nature of these omissions is minutely inspected,
their serious effect upon the character of the text in damaging its grammatical propriety, its significance, and trustworthiness, is apparent."
.
===============
.
This was reviewed favourably in the Journal of Sacred Literature (arguably the premier Bible Journal.)
.
==
.
Journal of Sacred Review (1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=TG8tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA220
.
The conclusion reached by the author as to the actual value of the Codex
may be briefly stated in his own words:—
"Curiosity is now glutted : the credit of the Vatican MS. is now dead. Who, therefore, will ever think of publishing it again ?"
.
==
.
(This proper assessment was written before the hortian fog, which ironically even made Vaticanus veneration the center theme of the textus corruptus. Oh, so many dupes, as Barnum pointed out.)
,
===============
.
Burgon first wrote on Vaticanus in 1860 in his Letter from Rome. (Revision Revised was 1881.) The British Quarterly Review in 1861. Scrivener wrote in the Christian Remembrancer in 1867.
.
===============
.
Here is some overlapping information on that era of better understanding, a full article is planned with more extracts.
.
[TC-Alternate-list] Vaticanus reaction 1858-1860 - Eclectic, British Quarterly Reviews, Journal of Sacred Literature, Titan
March 26, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/.../conversations/topics/4067
.
================
.