Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Codex Vaticanus and the Rheims New Testament

Expand Messages
  • TeunisV
    That is correct. See p, 21 of Lucas, Notat., 1580:
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      That is correct. See p, 21 of Lucas, Notat., 1580:
      http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00021531/images/index.html?id=00021531&fip=eayayztsewqeayaxssdasyztsqrseayaxs&no=25&seite=25
      Have mind: as far as I know the Greek NT with Werner's (ms) collations from the Vaticanus disappeared. Lucas mentioned ca 20 instances.

      Teunis van Lopik

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
      >
      > Teunis,
      >
      > Just double-checking for double-checking's sake: the line of descent appears to go like this:
      >
      > (1) Werner of Nimwegen made a collation of the NT portion of Codex Vaticanus, and this included information about the reading of B at John 7:39.
      > (2) Lucas Brugensis consulted the collation that Werner of Nimwegen had made and mentioned some of its more interesting points in his 1580 Annotations.
      > (3) The producers of the Rheims NT consulted Lucas Brugensis' Annotations, and the Rheims Preface-writer recollected Lucas Brugensis' note about the reading of Vaticanus at John 7:39.
      >
      > Is that correct?
      >
      > And there are umlauts alongside Jn. 7:39 in B. Hmm.
      >
      > Yours in Christ,
      >
      > James Snapp, Jr.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.