I'd planned to blog about a Stephanus version prior to Beza's edition, but then I realized that my edition of Stephanus' 1550 is actually Scrivener's edition of Stephanus, and since I'm primarily interested in format and typography of the originals, this wouldn't do (yet ... wait 'till I work my way into the 1800's!).

So, I'm hopping to Beza. I'll come back to the 1550 (and 1546) Stephanus versions after I download 'em from Bibles.org.uk.

On to Beza. First, check out the device on the title page. An anchor, water, a snake, and some arms. Complete with date in roman numerals. Typical for the period. Again, all of these images are clickable.

The facsimile I downloaded is pretty gritty, so the detail isn't the best. It's a shame, I'd really love to see how the start of each book looks in its full glory. Here you can see the beginning of the epistle to Titus. Once again, Beza's edition isn't simply a reproduction of the Greek text, it is his Greek text, his Latin translation, and the "Vetus" Latin, which I'd guess would be Jerome's Vulgate (but that's purely unconfirmed speculation). There are also marginal notes and scads of translation notes (in Latin, of course) that you can't see on this shot.

Of interest, we see the text is actually versified. I'm guessing that Beza is following Stephanus' innovation here — I think I recall that Stephanus was one of the first to present the text versified in a manner like we're familiar with today, though I could be wrong. So the verses line up. The first block is what we'd call Titus 1.1, and you can see the verse number in the gutter between columns. Same for verse 2, and so on.

On a purely cosmetic note, the marginal note throws the page out of balance. It looks lopsided due to the massiveness of the title device. It's tough for me to look at. It's not nearly as bad on other pages. Also interesting is the use of a smaller italic font for the "Vetus" Latin. He's obviously de-emphasized the older Latin in favor of his own translation.

So, what about Beza's version of 1Ti 2.3-6? Here it is. Beza has so many notes, these four verses span two pages of his edition:

In the above (though you probably can't read it) Beza cites the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot. Anyway, here's the actual content of the verses; you might even be able to read it:

Once again, we see some serious typography going on. Can you imagine hand-setting the type for these plates? That, and this is the third edition of a 1500's-era Greek New Testament we've seen, and they all have a "modern" translation (that is, the Latin) along with them. Yet today, most of those who study Greek seriously would rather not see any modern language translation at all in the version. It makes me wonder how come these early editions viewed such an addition as almost natural?

Of course, Stephanus' 1550 edition doesn't (as I recall, at least it doesn't on the front page of Mark that we have here at the Logos offices) have a Latin translation. So maybe Erasmus, Beza and the Complutensian are the outliers.

Next time: Stephanus' 1550 (and 1546) editions, assuming I download them successfully.