On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi)

“Might he grow weary on his journeys?” original: ταῖς ὁδοιπορίαις κάμοι; 31,21 plow original: ἄροτρον (instead of crop original: ἄροτον); 33,10 “the one of the seventh [day].” original: ἡ δὲ τῆς ἑβδομάδος Regarding the errors specific to Codex V itself, the following must be noted: 1,8 “by the thoughts of those who used [them]”; 2,4 “shamed”; 2,16 “of the most cohesive things” (instead of “the most cohesive of the things”); 5,16 “having sealed together”; 8,22 “all things which” (instead of “of all things which”); 9,4 “the criteria”; 10,26 “solid”; 11,11 “having flowed together”; 12,4 “having let go”; 17,14 “with eyes” (instead of “eye”: this reading seems to have arisen from a false interpretation of a double writing, which perhaps was “eye” original: ὀφθαλμός in the archetype|The original manuscript from which others are copied); 19,11 “solitude”; 20,7 “they extend necessary things” (instead of “they stretch out necessary things”); 23,17 “of others” (instead of “of later things”); 31,2 “wildness” (instead of “wildest things”). Several times, even intentional corruptions and interpolations|Later additions or changes inserted into a text by a scribe have crept into Codex V: at 2,12, in the other manuscripts, the words “they falsely claimed a great inactivity of God... whereas on the contrary...” original: τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ πολλὴν ἀπραξίαν . . . κατεψεύσαντο, δέον ἔμπαλιν are correctly preserved, but in Codex V (and in the writings of Eusebius|A 4th-century Christian historian who often quoted Philo) these are poorly contracted and corrupted as “having falsely claimed of God... whereas on the contrary of this...”; at 3,12/13 instead of the words “being in the same way, he assigned to the invisible and intelligible [part]” original: κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὄν, τῷ μὲν ἀοράτῳ καὶ νοητῷ προσένειμεν the following is read in Codex V: “being according to these invisible and intelligible things”; clearly the first word “being” was slightly corrupted, and then someone rashly corrected the words “invisible and intelligible” into the plural form; a similar corruption occurs at 3,15: “it would be necessary and not created” instead of “it would be necessarily and created”; 24,18 “of sudden light” instead of “of divine light”: the word “sudden” original: ἀθρόου seems to have first been written in the margin as a variant reading|An alternative version of a word found in different manuscripts, and then entered the main text, displacing the word “divine” original: θείου; the small word “for” original: γάρ was added twice without good reason at 4,20 (after “having wished”) and 26,4 (after “excellent”).

However, the authority of Codex V cannot be diminished by these and similar corruptions, as it is recommended and proven by a great many excellent readings. Not only does it usually favor the better reading when manuscripts are divided into two or more groups, but in many places where all other manuscripts are corrupt, this one alone has preserved the true and genuine wording in such a way that it occasionally sheds a new light on Philo's text. Notable examples of these corrections are as follows:

2,13 uncleanly original: ἀνάγνως in V (and Eusebius): whereas impurely, clearly, or not holily is read in other manuscripts. “Impurely” original: ἐναγῶς is a corruption of “uncleanly,” while “clearly” and “not holily” are empty attempts at correction. The wording “not holily” was perhaps repeated from a passage of Philo concerning...