It has not, however, a complete series of the symbols. I have noticed only 21 asterisks and 25 obeli, a mere fraction of the number in Vallarsi's edition.[1] As to the position of the symbols our scribe differs in no less than twelve instances from Vallarsi, and not always for the worse. The passages are the following:—
Vallarsi has no mark. But C rightly obelizes the second clause; for though it is in the Hebrew as now read, St. Jerome's version from the Hebrew omits it: " et auxiliabitur eis dominus et saluabit eos ab impiis."
Vallarsi has no mark, and both Heb. and LXX have et. But C is probably right. It is difficult to believe that the asterisk would be inserted without reason; and the LXX as read by Jerome may have lacked et.
Vallarsi has no mark. C is right: Heb. has et, while LXX omits it.
Vallarsi: qui dominatur in uirtute sua ÷ in : aternum.
LXX (ms. R): τῷ δεσπόζοντι ἐν τῇ δυναστίᾳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀιῶνος.
The Latin correctly represents the Hebrew (though in the version from the Hebrew St. Jerome renders the word olam by saeculo), while the LXX would give uirtute sua aeterna. On the analogy of other passages this would be indicated by uirtute sua * in : aeternum. Thus both Vallarsi and C are wrong, the former in substituting an obelus for an asterisk, the latter in misplacing the points.
Vallarsi: repleatur os meum laude ÷ ut cantem gloriam : tuam.
The LXX read as Vallarsi: Jerome's Hebrew has "impleatur os meum laude tua." These facts are correctly represented in Vallarsi. They would have been more conveniently represented by the insertion (as in C) of an asterisked tua, but then the following clause should have been obelized.
Vallarsi, with Heb. and LXX, omits et. But (1) it is unlikely that a word would be wrongly inserted, and at the same time obelized; and (2) words obelized by St. Jerome are often omitted in the mss. Hence it is more probable than not that C is right.
- ↑ Allowing for lacunae, C may have had about a quarter of the number of such marks found in Vallarsi.
