apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

124 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
examination enables me to say confidently that it is taken from the
2nd edition of Morel, Paris 1562. The transcriber is
very careless and
ignorant. He omits and miswrites constantly. But I have collated
nearly the whole volume, and have not found a single reading which
cannot be traced to Morel, when proper allowance is made for errors of
transcription.
This relation betrays itself in many ways. Thus in Ephes. inscr.
the scribe has imitated the contraction of rjvoifjiivyv as it
appears in
Morel's type, though generally he writes the letters separately. Thus
again in J^om. 9 the first o of /xoVos in Morel's edition is faulty, so that
the word looks like /xtVos; accordingly our scribe has written it //.tvos'.
Nor are these the only instances where the peculiarities or imperfections
of the type have misled him. Contracted words for instance are frequently
read and written out wrongly by him. Moreover this ms exhibits
a number of Morel's readings, which were due to conjectural emendation,
and which (being demonstrably wrong) could not have occurred
in any MS independently.
In the following readings for instance, for which there is no manuscript authority,
Leiccstrensis (L) agrees with Morel (M): Trail. 3 ov Xoyi^o/jLaL, ML rjv Xoytfo/xat;
id. 7 d ; ib. 8 iTriaKowy, ML iiriaKoirov; Ephes. 5 dvaK€Kpa-
/x4vovs, ML caiaKpeixajiivovi (this conjecture of M was founded on the corrupt reading
it is
1
These two instances show that the and iibvos is clearly printed. So again in
scribe did not use the first edition of Philad. 5 the MS has e'iXKVcrav with the
Morel (1558), but the second (1562). In second edition, whereas in his first edition
the first edition T]vwix^vr)v is uncontracted, Morel read eiXr}(f>e