HKB
described in the text, the ninth being derived from Lachmann’s Greek Testament (1742, 1850), whose readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much commend the accuracy of Buttmann’s work.
148 “Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rectè mandari posset:” Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Praef. p. 1. Tischendorf too, in his over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is not more than just in alleging “Angelum Maium in editionibus suis Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se praebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei palaeographicae scientiâ, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.” The defence set up for Mai in the Preface to the Roman volume of 1881, was that he intended to produce only a new edition of the “authentic” Septuagint of 1586-7, chiefly for the use of Greek-speaking Catholics.
149 The Dean himself on Feb. 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days, “went twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilized most of the important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the Librarian, who “insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp. 310, 315.)
150 “Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice edidit Ae. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsiae, 4to, 1867.
151 To his hand Tischendorf assigns seven readings, Matt. xiii. 52; xiv. 5; xvi. 4; xxii. 10; xxvii. 4. Luke iii. 1 (bis), 7. “For some six centuries after it was written B appears to have undergone no changes in its text except from the hand of the ‘corrector,’ the ‘second hand’ ” (Hort, Introd. p. 270). What then of B2?
152 It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the case of B2 or B3: “In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia continentur, et nihilo plus in primâ manu quam in secundâ inest auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaquaeque lectio ex se ipsâ spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hanc modo illam animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum est, non esse secundae manûs lectiones correctoris alicujus suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive illae sunt acutiores sive leviores, sed quidquid a secundâ manu correctum, mutatum, deletum esse Maius referat, id omne haud secus atque id quod prior manus dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (N. T. Vat. Praef. p. xxvi.)
153 It may be mere oversight that in Matt. xxvii. 4 he does not say in 1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition (1865) he adjudges it to B2. In Matt. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32 εκφύη he gives to B3 in 1867 what he had assigned to B2 in 1865. The Roman Commentary gives no light in the other places, but assigns πιστεύητε to B2, B3.
154 “Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Romae typis et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide,” square folio, 1868.
155 The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by Tischendorf’s Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which pamphlet we cannot highly praise.
156 This practice is plainly confessed to in the Preface to the volume of 1881 (p. xvi) without any consciousness of the fatal mistake which it involves: “Facies libri Vaticani repraesentata est [ut] ea primum omnia apparerent, quae a priore codicis notario profecta adhuc manifesto perspiciuntur, tum ea tantum a posterioribus sive emendatoribus, sive instauratoribus commutata adderentur, quae sine scripturae confusione legi possent.”