No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The ‘Manuscriptus Evangeliorum Antiquissimus’ of Daniel Heinsius (Vatic. Reg. gr. 79)*: I. The Indentification of Heinsius' ‘Very Old Gospel Manuscript’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Short Studies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975
References
page 286 note 1 Dan. Heinsius and te Textus Receptus of the New Testament (Leiden, 1971), p.44.Google Scholar
page 286 note 2 Aristarchus sacer, ‘pars posterior’, p. 259; Exercitationes sacrae, p. 821.
page 286 note 3 The manuscript is quoted by Wetstenius, J. J., Novum Testamentum Gr.… (Amstelaedami, 1751–1752), 1, ‘Prolegomena’, p. 57 as 99, byGoogle ScholarGregory, C. R., Textkritik des N.T. (Leipzig, 1909), p. 159Google Scholar, and Scrivener, F. H. A., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. (London-Cambridge, 1883 3), p. 200; (18944), p. 403 as 155, and byGoogle ScholarHermann, von Soden, Die Schriften des N.T. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt…, 1. Teil, 1. Abt(Göttingen, 1911), p. 60Google Scholar and 192, as ε 403. The MS is also mentioned by Birch, A., Quatuor Evangelia Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus codd. mss. Bibl. Vaticanae… (Hauniae, 1788), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar; and id., Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum ex Codd. Mss. Bibliothecae Vaticanae… (Hauniae, 1801), p. xxxi; and by Canart, P. and Peri, V., Sussidi bibliografici per i manoscritti greci della biblioteca vaticana (Studi e testi 261) (C.d. V. 1970), p. 308.Google Scholar
page 287 note 1 References to the ‘codex meus Graecus antiquissimus’ occur as well in the Exerc. sacrae, see for example ad John i. 6.
page 287 note 2 A faulty transcript of this inscription appears in Scholz, J. M. A., Biblisch-Kritische Reise… (Leipzig-Sorau, 1823), p. 100Google Scholar, and in Stevenson, H., Bibliothecae Apost. Vaticanae codices mss. graeci Reginae Suecorum… (Rome, 1888), p. 63. As far as we can gather from our microfilm of the MS, the inscription of Rivetus has been written over the erasure of an older inscription that is undecipherable.Google Scholar
page 287 note 3 E.g. Leiden, Univ. Libr. B.P.L. 26 B, 1–3. Cf. also the facsimile facing p. 164 in Honders, H. J., Andreas Rivetus als invloedrijk gereformeerd theoloog in Holland's bloeitijd (thesis Leiden, 1930) ('s-Gravenhage, 1930).Google Scholar
page 288 note 1 [Heinsius, Dan.], ‘Typographi lectoribus de hac editione’, in Novum Testamentum. Ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hac nova expressum:… (Lugd. Batavorum, 1633), fo. *2v.Google Scholar
page 288 note 2 On Rutgers(ius), J., see his autobiography in Chr., Gryphius (ed.), Vitae selectae XVIII. Eruditissimorum hominum (Vratislaviae, 1739), pp. 162–9, esp. 167–8.Google Scholar Rutgers does not mention Rivetus. See also Sweertius, Fr., Athenae Belgicae sive nomenclator (Antverpiae, 1628), p. 383;Google ScholarNiceron, , Mémoires pour servir d Vhistoire des hommes illustres…, xxxii (Paris, 1735), 139 –46; Jöcher iii, col. 2326Google Scholar (A.H.Sw.); Hoefer, , Nouvelle biographic ginirale…, 42 (Paris, 1863), col. 932;Google Scholarvan der Aa, A.J., Biographisch Woordenboek der Mederlanden…, Nieuwe Uitg. 16 (Haarlem s.a.), pp. 576 –7; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 30 (Leipzig, 1890), pp. 42–4Google Scholar; Reifferscheid, A., Briefe G. M. Lingelsheims, M. Berneggers…(Heilbronn, 1889), ‘Verzeichnis der Personen und Sachen’, p. 1036, sub Rutgersius. Speaking ofGoogle Scholar Rutgersius' library, Dan. Heinsius states: ‘quo ampliorem nemo ac instructiorem unquam bibliothecam his habuit’, ep. ad G. M. Lingelshemium 30 January 1626, ed. Refferscheid, op. cit. p. 243; cf. also p. 234.
page 289 note 1 On Rivetus, see Honders, Rivetus and van Opstal, A. G., Andri Rivet, een invloedrijk hugenoot aan het hof van Fred. Hendrik (thesis Free University, Amsterdam, 1937) (Harderwijk, 1937). Neither of these works mentions Rutgers.Google Scholar
page 289 note 2 The Inventaire de la correspondence d'André Rivet (1595–1650) (Archives internationales d'histoire des idees 43) (La Haye, 1971), drawn up by P. Dibon, E. Estourgie and H. Bots, mentions not a single letter from or to Rutgers.
page 289 note 3 The Aristarchus was in the press in June 1626 at the latest, see Heinsius' ep. adj. J. Cabeliavium 21June 1626, ap. Reifferscheid, Briefe, p. 253:‘Aristarchus, sive Exercitationes sacrae hic excunduntur.’
page 289 note 4 Sellin, P. R., Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England (Leiden, 1968), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar
page 289 note 5 On this catalogue see MrsOdier, J. Bignami, ‘Le fonds de la reine à la Bibliothéque Vaticane’, Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Alberada a Bibliotheca Apostolica edita (Studi e testi 219), pp. 170[14]–171[15].Google Scholar
page 289 note 6 We consulted the catalogue in Leiden, Univ. Libr., microfilm F 81. A contemporary copy of the catalogue is to be found at Oxford, Bodl. Libr. MS Orvilliani, x 1.2.10.
page 289 note 7 The hand of this so-called ‘Librarius Antverpiensis’ has never been identified. See Mrs J. Bignami Odier, art. cit. pp. 170[14]-171[15].
page 289 note 8 According to Stevenson (op. cit.), Vatic. Reg. gr. 79 is not a duodecimo, but an octavo. Mgr P. Canart kindly informs me by letter of 20 August 1972 that ‘Les mesures du ms. Sont 155 x 117 mm.’
page 290 note 1 Blok, F. F., Nicolaas Heinsius in dienst van Christina van Zweden (thesis Leiden, 1949) (Delft, 1949), pp. 81, 196 and 320–1. From the letter of Nic. Heinsius to Gronovius dated 5 September 1650 (Burman, Sylloge…, 111, 243), Blok quotes: ‘Ego meos, suos [Is.] Vossius, Reginae donavimus, quibusGoogle Scholar libris in unum congestis futurum est, ut regia biblioteca codicibus scriptis egregie instruatur.’
page 290 note 2 Blok, op. cit. pp. 68–9, 75, 80 and 89.
page 290 note 3 Ibid. p. 28.
page 290 note 4 Described in Sellin, Heinsius, pp. 52–60.
page 290 note 5 Mrs J. Bignami Odier, art. cit. p. 162 n. 3:‘Le Reg. graec. 79 et le Reg. lat. 1727 proviennent de Janus Rutgersius et sont déjà inscrits au catalogue de Stockholm.’ The remark is correct for Reg. lat. 1727, not for Reg. gr. 79. Mrs Bignami Odier is also wrong in designating Janus Rutgersius as égrand-pere’ of Nicolaas Heinsius, p. 162 n. 3, and in speaking of the latter as belonging to the second generation from Rutgers, p. 162.
page 290 note 6 Callmer, Chr., Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum bibliothecae regiae Holmiensis c. annum MDCL ductu et auspicio Isaac Vossii conscriptus… (Acta Bibliothecae Regiae Stockholmiensis xi) (Stockholm, 1971), p. xii.Google Scholar
page 290 note 7 Chr. Callmer, op. cit.
page 290 note 8 On this catalogue see MrsOdier, Bignami, ‘Le fonds de la reine…’, p. I72[16], n. 6; eadem, ‘Manuscripts’, in Christina Queen of Sweden — a personality of European civilisation (Nationalmusei Utställningskatalog 305) (Stockholm, 1966), p. 532 (reference due to C. Doelman, Rotterdam);Google ScholarRaes, A., ‘Avertissement’, in Les manuscrits de la reine de Suède au Vatican, réédition du Catalogue de Montfaucon et cotes actuelles (Studi e testi 238) (C. d. V., 1964), p. 6.Google Scholar
page 291 note 1 Not 1793, as stated by Raes, op. cit. p. 6. In De Montfaucon's Bibliotheca… the ‘Catalogus Manuscriptorum Codicum Bibliothecae Reginae Sueciae in Vaticana’ begins on p. 14 (tom. 1); on p. 32 one reads: ‘873. Evangelia Graece’. The numbers 868, 877 and 885 have the same title. We do not know exactly why 873 has been identified with Vatic. Reg. gr. 79 and not one of the other items of the same tide.
page 291 note 2 Thus Raes, op. cit. p. 6.
page 291 note 3 For the last paragraph we depend on Mrs J. Bignami Odier, ‘Manuscripts’, p. 530.
page 291 note 4 Dan. Heinsius and the Textus Receptus….
page 292 note 1 H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604. (London, 1890), ‘Appendix C’, pp. 24–5, lists fourteen variant readings, two of which we consider as nothing but orthographical variants not deserving of being indicated as ‘real various reading’: (1) Luke xix. 4: συKομορέαν 1624, συKομωραiαν 1633, συKομοραiαν Vatic. Reg. gr. 79; (2) John vii. 42 βηθλεέμ 1624 and Vatic. Reg. gr. 79, βεθλεέμ 1633.
page 292 note 2 See the three quotations from Heinsius' Aristarchus in the beginning of this paper.
page 293 note 1 For Heinsius' views on the textual criticism of the New Testament, see the ‘Prolegomena’ to the Exerc. sacrae (1639), p. 5; (1640), pp. 4–5.
page 293 note 2 I am grateful to Mgr Paul Canart, Lector of the Vatican Library, who kindly re-examined the date of the manuscript. From his letter dated 20 August 1972 (see above) I quote: ‘L’écriture du Reg. gr. 79 est d'un type archaiïsant ou “liturgique” difficile a dater. D'après les parallèles relevés dans l'album d'A. Turyn (Mss. Datés du XIIIe et XIV3 s. de la Bibliothèque Vaticanc), je la mettrais entre 1250 et 1350, mais il y a deux cahiers d'écriture moins artificielle, les ff. 1–8 et 271–280, que je daterais plus volontiers du XIIIe siècle.’ The same date is given by Stevenson Bibliothecae Apost. Vaticanae. Corrige K. Aland, Kurzgeƒaβte Lists der Gr. Handschr. des N.T. (Berlin, 1963), p. 69, ‘Jh.: XIV’.
page 293 note 3 Less ingenuous was Erasmus who, in the title of his Novum instrumentum, in a declaration at the end, and again in the dedicatory letter to Leo X, claimed that he had used ‘multi utriusque linguae codices, iique veteres’, whereas the MSS which he used are of late origin, possibly as late as the fifteenth century. Cf. B. Hall, ‘Erasmus, biblical scholar…’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Erasmus (Studies in Latin Literature and its Influence) (London, 1970), p. 96. Erasmus describes his ‘codex Reuchlini’, which modern scholars attribute to the twelfth century, as so old that it might have been written in the Apostolic age (Annot. in Rev. iii. 7). On the other hand, ‘antiquissimus’ was also Erasmus’ designation of the Codex Vaticanus (B) (Ann. in I John v. 7).
page 294 note 1 Hort, F. J. A., ‘Ff. 1. 24’, in A catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the university of Cambridge 11 (Cambridge, 1857), 313: ‘handwriting of the Vllth century’! Not every author who used Hort's description noticed the correction on fo. [A7]r.Google Scholar
page 294 note 2 Apart from the inscriptions of Rivetus and Nic. Heinsius, the 615 pages of Vatic. Reg. gr. 79 do not contain more Latin than that of two hands of the fifteenth or sixteenth century. One of these is responsible for an interlinear translation on fos. 17v-18r (Matt. v. 14–19) and fos. 237r-243v (John ii. 1 i-v.49). The other wrote on fo. 150r, arfLukeii. 1,‘edictum’ andonfo. 161 r, ad Luke v. 17, ‘legis doctores’. P. Canart (see above) states: ‘Au f. 299V., d'une main du XVIe siècle, la note vistop(er) mi summa (?); ces mots semblent se référer à un compte griffonneé sur la même page; il est fort douteux qu'ils visent le texte grec.’
page 294 note 3 Exerc. sacrae, pp. 66 and 68.
page 294 note 4 That the MS once belonged to Rivetus was known to Gregory, Textkrilik des N. T., but he placed this episode in the history of the MS in ‘1644?’, at least twenty years too late.
page 294 note 5 We cannot refrain from quoting the sentence in which J. M. A. Scholz, op. cit. p. 100, tried to summarize the history of the codex: ‘Wahrscheinlich erhielt es von Rutgersius die Königin Christine, und jener von Nicolaus Hemsterhuis.’ (Instead of ‘Nicolai Heinsii’, Scholz had read ‘NicolaoHemst.’)
page 294 note 6 The hypothesis is confirmed, however, by a testimony of Johann Heinrich Hottinger (1620–67). See our ‘The Study of the New Testament in 17th-century Leiden’, to be published on the occasion of the fourth centenary of Leiden University (1975).