4.3 Developments in Scholarly Discussions of Vaticanus
4.3.1 Bengel’s Contributions
50. See Castelli, Wettstein’s Principles, pp. 180–187 for a discussion on the background of this
principle. Although it had already been hinted at in his earlier works, this was the first time that
Bengel formulated and published the principle.
that reads the harder reading is superior to the easier.51
Moreover, this so-called ‘harder reading principle’ can and should be applied to a
broader context, as shown in his explanation of the word ‘proclive’:
manuscript twenty-six times among the thousands of variant readings he discusses
across the whole New Testament.56 Most of its references are from
More
important is his remark on the Barberini manuscript, namely the identification
of Vaticanus with one of the manuscripts collated by Caryophilus. Remarks of
the same kind—‘perhaps the same one’ (‘idem fortasse’)—recur in thirteen other
places where the attestation contains one ‘Barberini codex’ and Vaticanus.58 In
Erasmus and Lucas Brugensis, probably culled from Mill’s edition.
p. 137
4.3.2 Other Works Between 1730 and 1751
Johann Samuel Hichtel argued
that the Roman manuscript (that is, Codex Vaticanus) is superior to Codex Alexandrinus.
71
Based on Burnet’s account and notably the dating of the statue of
Hippolytus, Hichtel attempted to prove that the former manuscript is far better
than the latter regarding their age and quality. According to him, Vaticanus
would be dated to the third century or the beginning of the fourth, which is
much earlier than Alexandrinus.72
Following Pfaff’s opinion, he questioned the
Latinisation theory by challenging Mill’s point of view, the main antagonist in
his Exercitatio.73
Note: Michaelis covers Hichtel on Vaticanus
he almost never addressed any single variant reading, except for the
famous Comma.75
1737.76 Somewhat surprisingly, unlike Pritius, who questioned the antiquity of
Vaticanus, Hofmann valued this manuscript highly. By referring to several wellknown
sources, he sketched some of the manuscript’s characteristics including
its scripts, content, and the debate on its text-critical quality. Concerning its dating,
in particular, he considered it to be written in around 380 CE.77 For present
purposes, it is important to note that Hofmann heavily relied on Pfaff’s opinion
Let the Vatican manuscript be set forth with the highest praises. It is very difficult
to deny the antiquity of this manuscript, since it carries infallible signs of antiquity,
as cited above. However, it is lamented that now the manuscript has been diminished
in many places to such a degree that those who edited it introduced fresh ink
upon its lines: by bad counsel, if I am not mistaken, for in such a way the authority
of the manuscript depending on autopsy has been destroyed. For how easily could
the one who superimposed black ink above to deviate from the truth?78
Here Hofmann moved one step further to be suspicious of the intention of those
who had retouched the manuscript. That is to say, the work was made in order to
destroy the use of all first-hand examinations, since the genuine text of the Vatican
manuscript has been covered by the retouched and corrupted readings.79
79. To be sure, such an accusation is not correct. According to current scholarship, the re-inking
was probably conducted in the medieval age. In fact, due to this re-inking the original readings did
become a bit more difficult to detect but to a great extent they are still accessible. Moreover, although
the corrector did regularly introduce orthographical variants and on occasion also corrections,
the reason was mainly a practical one, that is, to extend the usability of this ancient manuscript
by retouching its entire text with a standardised spelling system and a set of ‘corrected’
readings. See Versace, Marginalia, pp. 43–50 for an overview of this scribe (his B18).
Johann David Osiander
In 1741, a polemical
work concentrating on 1 Tim 3:16 was published by John Berriman, in
which he argues for the traditional reading θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (‘God was
manifested in the flesh’), instead of the controversial alternative ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί (‘who was manifested in the flesh’).82 In fact, Berriman’s antagonist was
Wettstein, who doubted this particular clause based on his personal examination
of Codex Alexandrinus.83 I
NEWTON
Wettstein considered the
reading
οσ therein as authentic and suspected that a second hand has corrected
this to the ‘orthodox’ reading θ̅σ̅, the ?????
blunder?
It has been retouched throughout, … as I have been lately informed, by a Gentleman
who examined it himself: Only, this Gentleman observes, that some Passages
are to be excepted, which by mistake had been written twice over; which serve for a
Specimen of the original Character, as well as a proof that the rest of the MS. has
been faithfully renew’d. He adds, that the Corrections (which are many) are so
managed, that for the most part they leave the original Reading still discoverable.89
Thomas
Wagstaffe
Giuseppe
Bianchini reproduced a page from Codex Vaticanus in his Evangeliarium quadruplex,
published in 1749.96 Although it only contained a single page, taken from
the upper part of the manuscript’s page 1349, this was the first-ever printed
facsimile of its New Testament part (see figure 8).97 A
p. 144
4.4 Wettstein’s Sources on Vaticanus
Between his 1730 Prolegomena and the appearance
von Mastricht’s
Castelli
a citation from Maldonatus:
I have consulted many ancient manuscripts, and especially that most ancient and
most correct Vatican manuscript, written in majuscule letters, and the most celebrated
one in the whole world.108
Denis Amelote
Several aspects should be mentioned here. First, Amelote makes clear that his
reason for striving for ancient Greek manuscripts was to show the conformity
between Latin and ancient Greek manuscripts
Among all his comments, the one on the Comma Johanneum has drawn
particular attention not only from his contemporaries but also scholars in later
generations. In his comment on 1 John 5:7, Amelote claims that, in contrast to
Erasmus’s annotation, he found that the Comma is attested in the most ancient
manuscript in the Vatican Library:
Elle manque dans trois MSS. du Roy, dans celuy de S. Magloire, et dans six de ceux
d’Estienne. Elle manque dans le MS. d’Alexandrie, et en trois autres d’Angleterre.
Elle manquoit, dit Erasme, dans un ancien MS. grec du Vatican, (mais je la trouve au
contraire dans le plus ancien de cette Bibliotheque).115
It is not difficult to imagine that such a statement has been cited and referred to
many times, notably by those who argued the Comma as part of the genuine
text.116 Many others have criticised him for providing erroneous information.
However, as will be shown below, although he should be held responsible for his
carelessness, the reason for Amelote’s claim may well have been more complicated
than simply neglecting the fact that the Comma is absent in Vaticanus.
116. See, e.g., McDonald, Biblical Criticism, p. 227. Besides, Bengel mentions this remark in NTG,
p. 747; see also Gnomon, p. 1058: ‘If Amelote afterwards read the words in the Vatican manuscript, it
does not seem to be Latinised in this place’ (‘Si Amelotus postea in Vaticano codice dictum legit,
videndum, ne hic latinizet’). In fact, despite being absent from most of the Greek manuscripts,
Bengel views the Comma as authentic; cf. McDonald, Biblical Criticism, pp. 243–245.
Velesian Readings - separate page like Berberini
1570 this set
of variant readings was collected by Pedro Fajardo and written on the margin of
a copy of the 1550 Stephanus edition. That edition was then received by Juan
Luis de la Cerda, who printed those collected readings in his Adversaria sacra in
1626.125 What is surprising is that in about two thousand readings in this collection
almost every single one agreed with the Greek text underlying the Vulgate,
but many readings were so unique that no attestation could be found in any
known Greek manuscripts.
?
authenticity challenged by Wettstein
It seems thatWettstein does not refer to Amelote in his notes
on the Comma (Hand copy of von Mastricht 1711, vol. 3, pp. 520 sup.v and 521 sup.r).
Interestingly, among the nearly thirty instances where Amelote mentions Vaticanus
in the Catholic Epistles, only four of them are imprecise (including the
one on the Comma).
Intriguingly, the latter two descriptions
were identical to the collation made by
Bartolocci, Scriptor Hebraicus
of the Vatican Library (see § 2.2.2 above).140
And Aldina’s text did not have the Comma,
since it closely followed Erasmus’s first edition, in which the passage had not yet
been added. In other words, Aldina’s edition omits the Comma in its text, just as
most Greek manuscripts. As a consequence, unless particularly mentioned,
every collation against the Aldine text would have no reference to the Comma,
simply because the base text and the collated manuscript agree at this point.142
If
Amelote’s now-lost collation followed the same logical rule, then it is very plausible
that the collation simply provided no information at this place. Therefore,
Amelote could have misunderstood the silence of the Comma in his collation as
support for the presence of the passage.143
4.5 Vaticanus in Wettstein’s Novum Testamentum Graecum
(1751–1752)
half-page facsimile attached to Bianchini’s Evangeliarium quadruplex,
which contains Luke 24:32–39, 44–50 and John 1:1–10 in Vaticanus (see
my discussion in § 4.3.2).150
Of particular relevance here is his criticism of the famous ‘harder reading
principle’:
In fact, hardly two or three [very ancient manuscripts] are extant (the Alexandrine,
Vatican, and
Parisian),
It is clear that about a decade after his review of BengelWettstein now suspected
that these three ancient manuscripts had been ‘interpolated and corrupted’ (‘interpolatos
corruptosque’) according to the Latin version. His line of reasoning is
also noteworthy: that since, alone with the versions, they disagree with most of
the Greek manuscripts, it is more likely that these majuscules have followed the
versions. This reasoning implies that evidence from the majority of the Greek
manuscripts should be the criterion. In other words, for Wettstein these ancient
manuscripts could not have reflected the authentic readings because otherwise
one would have found traces remaining in other Greek manuscripts as well. The
criterion of counting witnesses would become more pronounced at a later stage,
known as the ‘majority rule’ in the ‘Prolegomena’ of NTG (on which see the discussion
below).167
Wettstein noted that the Comma Johanneum is not present in the very an
cient manuscript at the papal library in the Vatican, according to Bombace’s collation
for Erasmus.
On the opposite page, he listed the names of Lucas Brugensis,
the Complutensian Polyglot, the Barberini manuscripts, Maldonatus, and also
Sepúlveda. On the middle of the same page he wrote down a citation from the
1673 publication of Caryophilus’s collations, as well as referring to Vossius’s witness
to seeing them in Rome.1
In the penultimate paragraph of his section on Vaticanus,Wettstein expresses
his belief that the manuscript must have been Latinised. Here we find Wettstein’s
clearest verdict as he declares,
In order to put the whole matter in a clearer light, as far as it is at least possible to us, we will demonstrate that the Complutensian edition has not derived from thismmanuscript, that the New Testament in the Vatican manuscript has been interpolated from the ‘versio Itala’, and that in other aspects it is similar to the Alexandrine,to such a degree that they might have come from the same workshop.191
What is remarkable is that he now considers not only our manuscript to be ‘interpolated’,(‘interpolare’) according to the Latin version but also that the Vaticanmmanuscript is so similar to Alexandrinus that they could have originated ‘from
the same workshop’ (‘ex eadem officina’).192 He also states that although the Old,Testament in Vaticanus has generally retained the pure form of the Septuagint, its New Testament text is quite the opposite. Here an interesting twist is found in comparison with one of his arguments given in the 1730 Prolegomena, in that the consistency of the textual quality between the Old and New Testaments is particularly mentioned.193 Wettstein then raises three factors to argue for the Latinisation of this manuscript: (1) its Latinised readings are evidently proved by the three hundred places Erasmus received from Sepúlveda, as well as by Wettstein’s own comments in passing in the apparatus;194 (2) its resemblance with Alexandrinus is confirmed by Bentley,195 and also by some notable textual features;196 and (3) its chapter division is closer to that found in ancient Latin manuscripts than that of Greek manuscripts, as shown by Zaccagni. In the next and the last paragraph, he cites Grotius, Simon, and Mill in showing that they all considered the manuscript to be interpolated from the ‘versio Itala’. With these citations Wettstein concludes this section.
bottom of p. 166 GOOD on Latinisation reasons
Velesian readings and the Barberini manuscripts Fajardo
Already hinted at by his review of Bengel’s edition in 1734, in the end he came to the so-called ‘majority rule’.2
I consider the authority of the Latin version, of all other versions, and of the Greek,manuscripts agreeing with the Latin version for the most part secondary to the reading of all the other Greek manuscripts; hence, it cannot be otherwise that innseveral crucial passages where Bengel changes the received reading I retain it and defend it.203
4.6 Conclusions
In the end, Wettstein fell victim to the
Latinisation delusion, just as Erasmus and Mill before him. By applying the notion of Latinisation to other ancient witnesses, he even became one of the main advocates of that theory.