PREFACE OF PHILIPPO MONTANO TO THE GOSPELS
A Because of the various titles used by certain printers, by which they are accustomed to deceive buyers—pretending that many things have been restored and added, while in fact few or no passages have been changed or corrected, or indeed have even been corrupted—so that buyers, enticed by such grandiloquent words, actually suffer a loss: therefore, candid Reader, lest you suspect that some such thing has happened in this work as well, I have thought it convenient to point out a few things which have not been rashly altered by us, especially in the first chapters, from which you may conjecture the state of the rest if you should be troubled to compare them. And, not to wander too far, let us touch upon a few points from Chapter 1 of Matthew; for in the preface of Theophylact we have added more than can conveniently be inserted here. Thus, for that place “of the son of Abraham,” the previous edition had: “Wherefore did he put David before the son of Abraham?” whereas the Roman codex has it this way: Τίνος ἕνεκα προέταξε τὸν Δαυΐδ τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ;—that is, “Why did he set David before Abraham?” This reading is proved better by what follows and by what Chrysostom writes on the same passage. The translator seems to have read προέταξε, etc. And a little later, where Matthew writes that Judah B begat those twins, Phares and Zara by Tamar, it previously read: “And another before was born Phares.” Then, “he who put forth his hand is called Phares, which is dissection.” This place is also clearly corrupted, since he who put forth his hand was called Zara, as is evident from Genesis 38, and presently from this very Theophylact. Thus it should be read: “And another was born before [him], then he who had put forth his hand. Therefore, he who was born first was called Phares, which is dissection,” a point being made—that is, after “put forth,” you supply “he was born there”—and then let it be added, “he was called, therefore,” etc. Likewise, not much later, there, “All the generations, therefore,” etc., it was thus: “He divided the generations into three orders, to show that it profited the Jews nothing, though they were subject to judges until Christ.” This place also is mutilated and much corrupted, seeing that it makes mention only of judges, who cannot account for those three orders or tessaradecades. I think there is no need to record the Greek here, given such manifest errors, lest we burden the reader in vain; from the Greek we have restored this passage thus: “He divided the generations into three orders, to show that the Jews, whether they were governed by judges, as they were until David; or by kings, as they were until the transmigration; or by priests, as they were until Christ; yet they profited nothing toward virtue,” etc.; which reading is shown to be true both by what precedes, where he says that the generations were distributed into three orders, and by what follows immediately concerning the true Judge, King, and Priest, Christ. Chrysostom, whom our Theophylact mostly follows, holds the same opinion. In this same first chapter, where it says, “Do not fear,” by making two annotations out of one, and by putting “to receive” (accipere) for “receive” (accipe), the sense is muddied; which he also does a little later in a different way, contracting two annotations into one. I pass over for the time being the words omitted in many places, and many others that are much corrupted; which anyone will easily discover who wishes to compare even this first chapter and preface with the previous edition. In chapter eight, where it says, “And he said these things, as if his company annoyed him,” the Greek has: Ταῦτα δὲ ἔλεγεν ὡς ἂν πείσῃ αὐτὸν μεταβληθέντα ἀκολουθεῖν. This is: “And he said these things in order to persuade him, that having changed his ways he might follow.” In the following chapter, likewise, many things were C omitted, and some badly translated: as that at the end of the chapter, he calls the “harvest” the multitude of the ministry of which they were in need, whereas the Greek has: θερισμὸν ὀνομάζει τὸ πλῆθος τὸ χρῆζον τῆς θεραπείας, that is, he calls the “harvest” the multitude in need of healing. And in ch. 15, where it says, “To the Jews who are sheep, that had lost those things which had been entrusted to them,” we read in Greek: [LXX] Εἰς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, οἱ ἀπολωλότα εἰσὶ πρόβατα ἀπὸ κακίας τῶν ἐμπιστευθέντων αὐτά, that is: “To the Jews who are sheep lost by their own wickedness, to whom they had been entrusted or committed.” For just as the Greeks say actively, “I commit this thing to you,” so they also use the passive accordingly, “You are committed this thing,” for “you have it committed.” Which Greek idiom is sometimes used by Latin poets, as Horace on the miserly old men: “Lavo suspensi loculos tabulamque lacerto,” for “loculos suspensos et tabulam suspensam” (having [their] satchels and wooden board hung from [their] arm). In this chapter, too, as in others preceding and following, very many things had been entirely omitted, some reversed, and much corrupted. But hastening to the other evangelists, I shall discard that one thing from Matthew which is held in chapter 21 concerning the simple crowds. “Neither,” he says, “did they envy Christ, nor did they have an unworthy opinion of Christ: therefore even now they call him the prophet.” But it is never said without the article, etc., whereas the Greek has it far otherwise: οὔτε ἐφθόνουν τῷ Χριστῷ, οὔτε πάλιν τὴν προσήκουσαν περὶ αὐτοῦ ὑπόληψιν εἶχον. Διὸ καὶ νῦν προφήτην αὐτὸν λέγουσι, μήποτε δέ, ἐπεὶ μετὰ τοῦ ἄρθρου φασὶν ὁ προφήτης, δύναται νοηθῆναι, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προσδοκώμενος προφήτης, that is: “Neither did they envy Christ, nor again did they have a suitable opinion of him. Therefore even now they call him the prophet, unless perhaps, since they say ‘the prophet’ with the article, D it may be understood that this is the expected prophet.”
A To which the rest quadrant beautifully. A slip provided the occasion, I believe, because he had translated *μήποτε δέ* as “never,” whereas, wishing to adapt the rest to this, he inverted the entire meaning; since *μήποτε* in this place is not of a negating, but of a decidingly questioning nature, standing for "perhaps," or "unless by chance." In this meaning our Theophylact frequently accepts it, as in chapter xi of this work, where he translated *μήποτε δέ* as "far be it," whereas with "perhaps" he should have said: which he does twice in the same chapter, wrongly rejecting what Theophylact admits. In Matthew xxii and Mark xv, etc., it is taken in the same way. But why do I dwell on these, when there is no chapter at all in which many things have not been restored? I seem, therefore, to have been too prolix in these: and so I shall touch upon fewer things from the remaining evangelists. In the first chapter of Mark, noting the Jews who were neglecting the Scriptures, he says thus: *Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐξεωργοῦν αὐτάς οὐδὲ ἑρευνῶν*, that is, "But they themselves did not cultivate them nor search them"; but previously it was written, "but they themselves did not cultivate the fields nor inquire." And a little before, this negation, "neither," being omitted, expressed a contrary sense. And not to dwell longer, if anyone wishes to examine this whole first chapter, he will perceive many things omitted, and not a few corrupted, just as also in the chapter immediately following, so that I may point out one from many, where he says that David, fleeing from the face of Saul, offered the sword of Goliath taken away to the Lord: whereas it should be read, "the sword of Goliath offered to the Lord, he took away," as the Greek texts have, and history confirms this in I Kings, chapter xxi. B Likewise, at the beginning of the following chapter, a passage was clearly depraved, returning a contrary meaning. But I hasten to Luke, whose first and second chapters teemed with many errors, as also the one immediately following: where, besides many omissions, perhaps some things had not been sufficiently understood: as when he translates *ὅσον οὔπω* as "how much never," when it should have been translated "soon" or "a little later"; so that the sense might be that soon after the preaching of John, the Lord was to preach. By the same slip, the meaning was corrupted in chapter xviii, where he had translated *ὅσον οὔπω* as "not yet," when the sense demands that "soon," or "a little later," be said. C But in chapter xiv, where he declares that by him who "bought five yoke of oxen" is signified he who is occupied with earthly things and neglects the spiritual supper, he brings forward the authority of the Wise Man in this manner: "What does he, who prevails over another, calumniate?" But what, I ask, has this to do with the point? Whereas in Greek they have thus: *Τί σοφισθήσεται ὁ κρατῶν ἀρότρου*, that is, "In what will he be wise who holds the plow?" as we have in Ecclesiasticus xxxviii, according to the Septuagint, which he follows here, as do other Greeks: which indeed fits the purpose beautifully; for "yokes are well applied to the plow." Thus also chapter xxii, according to the Septuagint, must be read; "and let all the sons of God be strengthened in him," Deuteronomy thirty-second. In the same twenty-second chapter, many other things also can be seen to have been corrected. Finally, to derive some things also from the first chapter of John, there, "And the light shineth in darkness," declaring light to shine in darkness. He had put it thus: "For also in death he was made, as if he had been rent, so that he compelled him to emigrate from hence," etc. Where, I ask, is it said that light shines here in death, and exerts its powers? Therefore, we have restored it thus according to the Greek exemplar: "For even he himself, having died, thus overcame death, so that those whom it had previously swallowed, he compelled it to vomit up." A similar sentiment is held in I Cor. ch. xv, there, "The last enemy, death, shall be destroyed." And a little later, he seems to say that John the Precursor is speaking about his own [LXXI] birth; and many other things are in this same chapter not sufficiently appropriate. At the beginning of the second chapter, speaking about the Virgin Mother, he says: "Having an opinion of his power towards him." These words seem to sound as if she thought she had that power over Christ, that she could command him to turn water into wine: whereas the Greek texts present a far different sense, namely that the Virgin had conceived a great opinion of Christ's power from those things which had occurred both in his conception and birth, etc. But what follows there immediately—"that he might pray to God" for "that he might pray him"; and likewise "from the mind" for "from the examination"—and many things of this kind, to be imputed to the scribe or typesetter rather than the interpreter, could have been corrected by the industry of the reader. But where in the ninth chapter he teaches through Ezekiel saying: "The fathers have eaten," etc., some things omitted there admitted a contrary meaning; as also in the following chapter, where for "for they know" it should be read "for they do not know," as the Greek texts have: otherwise the gloss would pugn with the text. But that in the same chapter for "apostasy" we had "apostles"; and that for "from him" it had been written "from Egypt"; whence I even suspect the passage to have been strangely corrupted, where he was asking about evil and avaricious shepherds: "For not," he says, "were they seeking utility out of Egypt, but filthy lucre"; whereas it ought to be read, "for they were not seeking the people's utility, but out of him to obtain filthy lucre." These, I say, and many others of this kind could be ascribed to the printer rather than to the interpreter. But that in most places very many things were omitted, on which the following things depended—not just a few words, I say, but very many verses, and even whole pages—and that a negation was quite often, contrary to the author's mind, either omitted or injected, inducing a contrary meaning; whether this is to be imputed to the scribe, or the typesetter, or the interpreter, or a mutilated manuscript, let it be the judgment of others. It will have been abundantly enough for me if, with the favor of the Most High, we have somewhat aided the public utility of studies through our own mediocrity. The interpreter certainly confesses that his manuscript was mutilated at the end of John: yet it can happen that even he was more corrected in some places than our own: and therefore we have left some things untouched, whether because they fit the sense well, or because they were not of great moment, even if they do not entirely correspond to our Greek Codex. D Sometimes, however, we have added a different reading to the margin, and that especially when both could be defended—the former, indeed, left in the context, but enclosed by notes of this kind †, reserving the judgment for the reader as to which he may prefer. But these things perhaps, while we study to meet the morose, are too many for your indulgence. Farewell, candid Reader, and take in good part, I pray, what we bring forth for public utility according to our mediocrity. From our Turnacensian museum at Paris, 1515. And again 1552.