Version A: The author wrote: "Comprehendunt autem per illam eandem particulam non solum Christianos a Catholicis baptizatos sed etiam baptizatos ab haereticis in forma ecclesiae et extra formam ecclesiae (qui sacramentum baptismi nec quo ad gratiam nec quo ad characterem quoquomodo suscipiunt)." Meaning: "And they include by the same element not only Christians baptized by Catholics, but also those baptized by heretics in the Church's form and outside the Church's form, who in no way receive the sacrament of baptism in respect of either grace or character." This is the text as found in Vf, Ox, Av, We, Ba, Di, To.
Version B: To remove the ambiguity in the scope of "qui", someone wrote in the margin: "scilicet extra formam ecclesiae baptizati". When the MS and its copies were copied, this comment was reproduced, perhaps at first as a marginal comment but eventually as part of the text. Hence version B: "...et extra formam ecclesiae qui (scilicet extra formam ecclesiae baptizati) sacramentum baptismi nec quo ad gratiam nec quo ad characterem quoquomodo suscipiunt". Meaning: "And they include by the same element not only Christians baptized by Catholics, but also those baptized by heretics in the Church's form and outside the Church's form, who (namely, those baptized outside the Church's form) in no way receive the sacrament of baptism in respect of either grace or character". This version is found in Fi, An, Ce, La, Na, Lc, Vg, Va, Pc, Vb, Sa, Pz, and, with a minor change, in Ly. Es contains version A, but the explanatory comment has been copied into its margin after comparison with some MS containing the comment in the margin or in the text.
Version C: By homoioteleuton (skipping from the end of the first "extra formam ecclesiae" to the end of the second) version B became version C: "et extra formam ecclesiae baptizati sacramentum baptismi nec quo ad gratiam nec quo ad characterem quoquomodo suscipiunt"-i.e. the "qui" of version A has been lost and nothing is left of the explanatory comment of version B except its last word, "baptisati". Version C is ungrammatical ("...etiam baptizatos ab haereticis in forma ecclesiae et extra formam ecclesiae baptizati..."-"baptizati" should be "baptizatos" to agree in case). Version C is found in Bb, Ko, Un, Vd, Pa, Pb, Ar.
Amendments: In three MSS based on one or other of the above versions amendments were made, by "contamination" or by conjecture:
(a) The ancestor of Vc, also the ancestor of Vf, presumably had version A. But someone comparing the text with some MS containing version B copied the explanatory comment into the text of Vc, omitting the "scilicet". After another comparison with version B, "scilicet" was written into the margin.
(b) The text copied by Fr (or some ancestor) seems to have been version A. (Fr includes readings derived from the family of MSS that contains version A, though its main source belongs to some other part of the tradition.) Someone amended the text conjecturally by moving the "qui" to an earlier point to replace "et" and adding "enim", so that the text became: "Comprehendunt autem per illam eandem particulam non solum christianos a catholicis sed eciam baptizatos ab hereticis in forma ecclesie qui enim extra formam ecclesie sacramentum baptismi [m]suscipiunt[/m] nec quo ad gratiam nec quo ad caracterem quoquomodo suscipiunt." Someone supplied "suscipiunt" in the margin, needed because the new "qui" clause now lacked a verb (the existing "suscipiunt" now belonged to another clause). Meaning: "And they include by the same element not only Christians baptized by Catholics, but also those baptized by heretics in the Church's form. (For those who receive the sacrament of baptism outside the Church's form in no way receive the sacrament of baptism in respect of either grace or character)." This departs from the likely intended meaning, which was that those who have received what purports to be baptism in some improper form, though they do not receive the grace or character that baptism in the proper form confers (even if administed by heretics), can nevertheless become heretics. (See the wider argumentative context to which the passage belongs. Catholics can become heretics, but the net must be cast wider: not only genuine Catholics, but also those who falsely claim to be Catholics without ever having been baptised, and those who have received baptism from heretics, either in proper form or in some improper form. All of these can become heretics if they are pertinacious in some belief inconsistent with Catholic faith.)
(c) The writer of Ca or its ancestor amended version C conjecturally by writing "qui" before "baptisati" to fix the grammar and syntax. (Meaning: "...and outside the Church's form. (These baptised persons in no way receive the sacrament of baptism in respect of either grace or character.)") This conjecture coincidentally restored the original "qui" dropped by version C, and it restored the meaning of version A. The text of Ca retained "baptizati", the last word of the explanatory comment incorporated in version B, which was all that remained of it in version C. Someone then compared Ca with some MS containing version B and wrote into the margin "scilicet extra formam ecclesiae", thereby reproducing the original marginal gloss (without its last word, which was already included in the text). If Ca had been copied with the marginal amendment included in the text the copy would have shown version B. (There is no reason, however, to believe that Ca is the source of any extant MS.)
See review of this passage.
What does this hypothetical history imply about the MS relations?
(1) It is consistent with the general pattern, in which MSS of the Vc and Ba groups have a better text than that of the remaining MSS. This text also sporadically influenced the production of Fr, as here.
(2) Whether one of the other MSS contains version B or version C has no significance, since omissions due to homoioteleuton can easily happen independently. All these MSS descend from an ancestor that contained version B (from which the "baptizati" of version C derives), but given that omission happens easily, it is quite possible for several different MSS containing version C to belong to different sub-groups of this tradition, other members of which may contain version B. For example Pa contains version C and the MSS that generally seem closely related to it contain version B--but the difference at this point is no reason to doubt the general closeness of the relationship.
Return to "Manuscript Relations"