HKB
τὸν θεόν at the end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to 101.
240 Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi], 4to, 2 vols., on parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been examined by Wetstein, Griesbach, and by G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, 8. It is now, however, admitted by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephen, and as such has no independent authority.
241 (Wetstein.) THE VELESIAN READINGS. The Jesuit de la Cerda in his “Adversaria Sacra,” cap. xci (Lyons, 1626), a collection of various readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a Greek Testament (which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R. Stephen’s of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek. These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own better judgement) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however (N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 59-61), and after him Michaelis and Bp. Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have been collected by Velez from Latin manuscripts, and by him translated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian readings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the possibility of doubt:
(For each of these, there is the reference, the Greek Text, the Vulgate Text, the Vulgate various reading, and the Velesian reading.)
Mark viii. 38; ἐπαισχυνθῇ; confusus fuerit; confessus fuerit; ὁμολογήσῃ; Heb. xii. 18; κεκαυμένῳ; accensibilem; accessibilem; προσίτῳ; ——xiii. 2; ἔλαθον; latuerunt; placuerunt; ἤρεσαν; James v. 6; κατεδικάσατε; addixistis; adduxistis; ἠγάγετε; Apoc. xix. 6; ὄχλου; turbae; tubae; σάλπιγγος; ——xxi. 12; ἀγγέλους; angelos; angelos; γωνίας.