Philippe de Chérisey's secretiveness, or the strange alliance between the De Chérisey family and the descendants of Theodore Beza
Was Philippe de Chérisey ignorant of the existence of the Codex Bezae, and was he a stranger to the family of its commentator, Theodore Beza, who gave his name to this codex?
About the impossibility of justifying the authenticity of the parchments of Rennes-le-Château by maintaining the argument that Philippe de Chérisey did not know about the existence of this codex.
One of my colleagues, whose education and insight are firmly established, had just made an important discovery concerning Philippe de Chérisey, when I decided to publish it. I could not imagine that this publication would become the object of a fierce controversy, with the sole aim of calling this discovery into question. Indeed, such an announcement seems to have caused a big stir amongst certain researchers, who attempted to shake our arguments, more often than not, by saying everything their bad faith would inspire them. It has been an occasion for us to refine our argumentation and to clarify our approach. Therefore, we intend to describe it in these few lines.
To tell the truth, one of the only arguments put forward by the supporters of the authenticity of the so-called "Bérenger Saunière parchments", regarding their refusal to acknowledge Philippe de Chérisey's authorship of these documents, lies in the absence of a connection tying him to Theodore Beza, or to the Codex bearing his name. According to them, Chérisey would never have even suspected the existence of this codex, or of his commentator, Theodore.
When we set out to make mention for the first time of a kinship between Philippe de Chérisey and the family of Theodore Beza, the astonishment was such, that we were objected that it could only be a confusion with another family called « Dreux Brézé », vaguely similar in name, and who would appear, in the De Chérisey family tree, near the end of the XVth century. According to Franck Daffos, it is noticeable that a certain Gaston de Brézé (1467-1543) would have married, around 1490, one Marie de Chérisey.
But that was beside the point, since an alliance between the De Chérisey family and the Beza family was of interest only if it happened to have been joined quite recently. Logic dictates in this matter, that relationships between the De Chérisey and the Beza (De Bèze) families are not to be researched back to the Middle Ages, and that one needs not burrow through centuries' worth of their genealogy! Philippe de Chérisey has not lived in the Middle Ages, and consequently, should he have heard about the De Bèze family, or have had an occasion to be interested in them, such a realisation could only have taken place quite recently, for instance through a family alliance which would have closely affected him.
Having escaped the attention of the various researchers, such an alliance was nonetheless clearly mentioned in the retranscription of the history of the family's estate of Château de Joncy, available on the website of the Wikipedia free encyclopedia at this address:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Joncy One can glean from this page that the beautiful estate of Joncy, located in the municipality of the same name, in the department of Saône-et-Loire, near the river Guye, used to be the property of a certain Baron named Jacques Cottin de La Barre, who bequeathed it to his eldest daughter, Mme de Latane de Puyfoucauld. She in turn, left it to her daughter, Mme de La Maisonneuve, who then did the same with her own daughter, Mme Théodore de Bèze. The latter happened to be the female cousin of Jean René, Viscount (Count) de Chérisey, who lived in the XXth century. A French diplomat, Jean René de Chérisey inherited from his female cousin the Château de Joncy estate, and endeavoured to reunite a third of the lands formerly composing the barony, whilst taking care to restore the remaining buildings, as well as to reconstitute the French-style gardens.
It is surprising that this alliance was never mentioned in any recent book dealing with the Priory of Sion, the Rennes-le-Château parchments, and with the deeds and actions of the Marquis Philippe de Chérisey. Especially regarding the supposedly non-existent links between the De Chérisey family and all things related to the De Bèze (i.e. Beza) family, and to the eponymous codex which made Theodore Beza, their ancestor, famous. Yet, it is an undeniable fact that the kinship between the De Chérisey and the De Bèze family was known to Philippe de Chérisey and to his cousins, and that around 1940, the female cousin Mme Théodore de Bèze was still cited in reference to the inheritance received by Jean René de Chérisey. Besides, it seems that this event left an especially lasting mark in everyone's minds, and that this inheritance triggered some feuds (or aroused the covetousness of several) within the family.
We still have to add about this matter, that when this relationship was clearly shown to some researchers, we were objected that it was unverified information, and that no mention of such an alliance by the De Chérisey family could be found anywhere. Yet, we did learn from the own words of the Viscount Jean René de Chérisey, who was Philippe de Chérisey's cousin, that Jean René had inherited the Joncy estate from his female cousin Mme de Bèze, and that a recent alliance had been joined between his family and the De Bèze family. Indeed, we can read in his memoirs, written during the 1940-1945 Second World War, and scanned by Jean Loup de Chérisey, the following:
"To me (i.e. coming from Mathilde de Boisjourdan, cousin of Mme Théodore de Bèze, who was also a relative of the Cottin de La Barre family), she left what she had received from the inheritance of her female cousin DE BÈZE at JONCY: the Pré du Vigny (Meadow of Vigny), and the Petite Garenne. [...] As for Madame de La Maisonneuve, she rarely lived at JONCY, which had suffered so much from the Revolution. Her only daughter, Madame Théodore DE BÈZE, never lived there.
I have explained elsewhere by which combination of circumstances my grandmother (here, Mme Clara Cottin de La Barre, daughter of Jacques Cottin de La Barre de Joncy, and widow of François Louis Victor, Count de Chérisey), having inherited one fourth of the lands remaining from JONCY, at 94 years old, asked me to take it over."
We can perfectly see that this alliance is solidly documented, and that the De Chérisey family still had a fresh memory of it within their minds in 1940 or 1945, at the time when Philippe de Chérisey was living. Now, some researchers maintain arbitrarily that Philippe could not have taken any part in the creation of the so-called "Bérenger Saunière parchments", solely based on the principle that the latter was completely unaware of the existence of the Codex Bezae. These researchers add that Philippe de Chérisey's ignorance extended to the very name of the Codex, and that he did not even know about the existence of this manuscript's most famous commentator: Théodore de Bèze.
Now, although it is permitted to have reservations (only about the hypothesis that Philippe de Chérisey knew of the Codex Bezae and of the family who made it famous), concerning the participation of Philippe de Chérisey in the elaboration of the two parchments, i.e. in the fabrication consisting in copying passages from the Codex Bezae in order to create fake parchments, on the other hand, it is impossible to argue about the authenticity of these parchments by pretending that Philippe de Chérisey did not know anything about the Codex and the De Bèze family who gave it their name. We have to admit that this is actually a false issue, and that the elements which we have just exposed, put a final nail in the coffin of the historical mix cobbled together by certain treasure researchers. Unfortunately for them, and probably too hastily, they had constructed a line of reasoning on unsound foundations, which they can no longer manage to justify, around a fabulous treasure "as big as a football field".
Théodore de Bèze
At bottom, it does not mean that this alliance between the De Bèze and the De Chérisey families, and a knowledge by Philippe de Chérisey of the existence of the Codex and of its contents can establish, in and of themselves, that Philippe is indeed the author of the parchments. Besides, we do not have any direct evidence indicating this. Rather, these elements are proof that the method developed by these researchers was not acceptable, because they proclaimed to whomever would listen, that the parchments were necessarily authentic because Philippe de Chérisey had no connection with the famous Codex.
One can easily acknowledge that, all too often, gratuitous statements and arbitrary judgments become the germ of tiring squabbles between researchers, as well as endless procrastinations leading nowhere, which finally delay by several decades the redaction of earnest conclusions. To be counted amongst the number of attempts to discredit my colleague's discovery in the eyes of unsuspecting people, several questions were asked of us. Some of their interrogations purported to throw into question our authority on research, and far from enhancing the scientific debate, they were desperate attempts to cast away every bothering element of this kinship between Philippe de Chérisey and Madame Théodore de Bèze. Thus, there wouldn't be any reason to enumerate these incongruous questions, the answers of which do not pose any difficulties, if we hadn't noticed that these answers were leaving some readers perplexed.
• It has been pretended that Mme Théodore de Bèze could not belong to the De Bèze family, under the sole pretext that "Théodore de Bèze" here, seemed like a family name of its own. Besides the strangeness of this reflection, it is simply necessary to know that amongst old families, married women take their husbands' first names. Consequently, Mme Théodore de Bèze is no exception to the rule, and this can be seen very easily, since Jean René de Chérisey mentions her as well, by saying "her female cousin De Bèze", and not "her female cousin Théodore de Bèze".
• It has been alleged also that the famous Théodore de Bèze had neither brother, nor sister, nor any family at all, and that his father, Pierre de Bèze had died childless, as well as that Théodore could not have had any descendants either, and that Jean René de Chérisey's female cousin, Madame Théodore de Bèze, could consequently not descend from the De Chérisey family. These researchers were apparently hoping to set an insurmountable hurdle for us there, by assuming that the difficulties which one encounters in trying to gather information about the De Bèze family, could lend credit to their assertions. Yet, such is not the case, since it is possible to read, in the book entitled « Un siècle et demi d'histoire protestante » ("One and a half century of Protestant history") by Léo Hamon, as well as in the article by Jean-Marc Berthoud, « Théodore de Bèze, Pasteur et défenseur de la foi » ("Theodore Beza, a Pastor and Defender of the Faith") published in the Revue Réformée (Reformed Journal), that his father (of Théodore de Bèze), Pierre de Bèze, who was the bailiff of the King (i.e. governor) in Vézelay, had seven children from a first marriage with Marie Bourdelot from a noble family of the Nivernais (province around the city of Nevers), and that he had six more children from a second marriage. We can plainly see that all these arguments were only futile attempts, on the part of certain researchers, in order to avoid confronting some realities, which are unpleasant to consider when one elevates as dogma, the daydreams of treasure researchers.
The book by Léo Hamon (« Un siècle et demi d'histoire protestante : Théodore de Bèze et les protestants sujets du roi » - "One and a half century of Protestant history: Theodore Beza and the Protestant subjects of the King", by Léo Hamon, published by Les Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (MSH), in the collection "Les Entretiens d'Auxerre", Paris, 1985) is accessible at this address! The relevant excerpt is located on page 63 of the book, at the beginning of the Chapter 5 entitled "Théodore de Bèze", which was written in collaboration with the Pastor Jacques Fromental.
The full text of the article by Jean-Marc Berthoud (« Théodore de Bèze, Pasteur et défenseur de la foi (1519-1605) » - "Theodore Beza, a Pastor and Defender of the Faith (1519-1605)" an article by Jean-Marc Berthoud, in Revue Réformée (Reformed Journal) no. 240 - 2006/5, November 2006 - Volume LVII) is available at this address. The relevant passage can be found immediately after the article's introduction, at the beginning of the first section « I. Vie de Théodore de Bèze » - « 1. Enfance et jeunesse » ("I. Life of Theodore Beza" - "1. Childhood and Youth").
Quote: "As we have just said, Dieudonné de Bèze - he grecised (i.e. made Greek) his first name into Théodore - was born in 1519 in the old city of Vézelay. He came from a family in the minor nobility, his father, Pierre de Bèze (1485-1562), a jurist and heir to a fortune connected to the industrial work of foundries, as well as to many ecclesiastical benefices, was the royal bailiff of his native city. Théodore, the youngest of seven children from a first marriage (Pierre de Bèze's second wife gave him six more children), had a fragile health, although he later showed steadfast robustness."
• About the attempts at circumventing the subject: The contestation of Mr. Daffos centers around a demonstration attempt aiming to prove that Philippe de Chérisey could not have obtained "secret knowledge" about the Codex Bezae, a knowledge passed down from generation to generation within the De Bèze family (whilst pretending that the transmission of such knowledge was an allegation of Isaac Ben Jacob). Yet, the present study was simply attempting to highlight the fact that Philippe de Chérisey could not be ignorant of the origin of the text of the "parchment", or of the history of the Codex. The interest of this study being, to show that the argumentation used by the people who want to prove that Chérisey "could never have created these parchments" because he seems to make a mistake when mentioning the "Dom Cabrol", that these people are in error, that the Dom Cabrol does have a precise and yet ignored usefulness, and that it is just as imprudent, in order to discredit Philippe de Chérisey as an author, to rely on the "explanations" supplied by him about how he encoded the parchments.
The De Chérisey family are divided into two nobility titles:
The branch of the Marquis de Chérisey, which is of interest to us, starts with the 3rd Marquis de Chérisey. That is to say, with Charles LOUIS, (3rd) Marquis de CHÉRISEY, born on 9th August 1751, in the parish of Saint-Roch, in Paris, France. The title of Marquis befell to his first son, Charles César Louis PROSPER, (4th) Marquis de CHÉRISEY, born on 5th December 1786, in the parish of St. Nicolas des Champs, in Paris, France. And the title of Count (and Viscount) befell to another of his sons, François Louis VICTOR, Count de CHÉRISEY, born on 5th September 1793, in Luxembourg. These titles of Count and Viscount will be received by Louis Victor, and thus later by Jean RENÉ, Viscount de CHÉRISEY, a cousin of Philippe de Chérisey, who was a Marquis himself. This Jean René was the person whose mother belonged to the Cottin de La Barre de Joncy family, and was a relative of Mme Théodore de Bèze. The son of the 4th Marquis is Charles Auguste RENÉ Louis, (5th) Marquis de CHÉRISEY, born on 17th June 1822, in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, in the Yvelines department, in France. So, the title of Marquis will be borne by this Charles Auguste René Louis, and passed down to Philippe de Chérisey himself.
Had Philippe de Chérisey made a connection between the Codex Bezae and the text of the so-called "parchments of Abbé Saunière"?
Did Philippe de Chérisey know the Codex Bezae? Is this an uncertain assumption? No, and a specific point will suffice to demonstrate it.
First, let us describe the method: If the "Stone and Paper" document, that is to say the "Testament of Philippe de Chérisey" was indeed written by his own hand, then it cannot be doubted that he did have knowledge of the existence and of the contents of the Codex Bezae. Otherwise, he would not be discussing in it about the passage beginning with "Secundo Primo".
Explanation: Thanks to the documents kindly supplied by Valérien Ariès, it is now permitted to verify Philippe de Chérisey's own handwriting. When one compares the manuscript of Chérisey's "testament" reproduced at the end of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's book, to the extracts of his letters displayed on the « Portail et Gazette de Rennes-le-Château » website of Johan Netchacovitch (in the Dossier entitled « Les archives de Philippe de Chérisey » - "Philippe de Chérisey's Archives" -, by Valérien Ariès and Johan Netchacovitch, published on 25th November 2006, available at the following address: http://www.portail-rennes-le-chateau.com/cherisey/cherisey.htm), then doubt is not allowed anymore: it is actually the same handwriting, a very peculiar handwriting, and very easy to identify. Thus, the "testament" was indeed authored by Philippe de Chérisey.
Once this first point is established, the only thing which remains to be done is to notice the fact that Chérisey, in nearly 50 % of his explanations regarding the redaction of the two parchments, bases his entire argumentation upon these two words only: "Secundo Primo". As an example, we can read in an interview of Philippe de Chérisey done by Jean-Luc Chaumeil, as well as in Chérisey's "testament", these few sentences:
*** "- Jean-Luc Chaumeil: Now, there is a first system with the P.S.?
- Philippe de Chérisey: Yes, that's it. But that is yet another matter. In fact, one must take that which is second. That which is second must come first. It's a bit like Japanese moneyboxes, where the key is inside. The whole beauty of the decipherment resides in one of the Gospels of Luke, which begins thusly: "In Sabbato Secundo Primo". Besides, this text has caused headaches to anonymous societies. One should add that "a certain Sabbath day, the second first", is not quite translatable, to speak clearly. Nobody has ever heard about it. Then, since they (the apostles) are walking in a field of wheat, and they are hungry and directly eating the ears of wheat which they pluck, it must be a reference to the "Second Sabbath following the first day of (the feast of) Unleavened Bread". It's all they have been able to come up with, as interpretation! [...] As a conclusion, "In Sabbato Secundo Primo" does not mean: one certain Sabbath day, the second first, but it means: "in his quality of second, Sabbasius (has) become first". What is amusing, is that the meetings of Witches are called "Sabbaths". [...] The first sentence contains enigmas which the exegetes have renounced to solve. Jesus in sabbato secundo primo, Jesus during a second first Sabbath day, which could have been the second Sabbath following the first day of Unleavened Bread, or the first Sabbath following the second day (of Unleavened Bread)? Unfortunately, this second first Sabbath is not referenced anywhere in Biblical literature." ***
Blason de Cherisey - "TOUJOURS TOUT DROIT"
The words "Secundo primo" evidently have considerable importance to Philippe de Chérisey. Might they contain a key which could help us along the trail to the Codex Bezae? As Philippe de Chérisey points out, no commentator has ever understood what a "second first Shabbat" meant (translation of "sabbato secundo primo"), and this is the reason why the exegetes have recognised that it was a notable peculiarity, one specific to the Codex Bezae. This clearly means that Philippe made his own enquiries about it, since he asserts that "the exegetes have renounced to solve" the literary signification of this first sentence of the parchments' text. Now, and this is precisely where the key to the demonstration lies, if Chérisey did actually investigate on these words "secundo primo", and since he is basing all of his commentary of the parchments upon them, then he cannot be unaware of the fact that the only manuscript known as "European" to contain these words within its text, is the Codex D-05, id est, the Codex Bezae. We can read this indeed in the work of one the only Catholic exegetes to be a Biblical expert, Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange, who was the director of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Bibliques ("Practical School of Higher Biblical Studies") in Jerusalem (under the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII) that "here, it may probably be a reference to the Second of two Sabbaths which could be characterised as firsts. These words, Secundo-Primo, being implausible, must be rejected according to the rules of (textual) criticism, since they are omitted by Codices: Aleph, B, L, W, 1, 22, 33, 69, 118, 157, 209, ew, b, c, e, f° l q, boh, sah, syrr, which allows one to remove them, in spite of their occurrence in the Codex (D-05) Bezae". No European text written with uncial script, other than the Codex Bezae, contains these words. And Philippe de Chérisey, having fixed his attention upon them and consulted "the exegetes", could consequently not be ignorant of it.
Let one take from this, whichever conclusion one sees fit to. For my part, I also think that there exists a sort of "continuity of thought" between Bérenger Saunière and Philippe de Chérisey. In his own words, Chérisey was only "a half-prankster". Therefore, there is a bottom of truth to this story. Even within parchments yet visibly written by Philippe de Chérisey, there does remain something which is the expression of what really happened in Rennes-le-Château at the time of Bérenger Saunière. Read the presentation of the book.
Finally, we also need to underline, concerning the "Secundo Primo", that Mr. F. Daffos has stated that this discovery could not possibly have any importance because these two words were already in the parchments' text, and thus, all Chérisey needed to do was to have read those manuscripts in order to be able to quote these words. This is inaccurate! Indeed, one cannot imagine, and it would even be inexplicable, that Chérisey would have quoted these words rather than any others, and that he would have quoted them SPECIFICALLY, whereas these two words are SPECIFIC to the Codex Bezae, that is to say, they do not exist in the other Western-type manuscripts. Now, one cannot quote these two words and pay close attention to these two words, without knowing the Codex Bezae, since the exegetes have specifically classified the words "Secundo-Primo" as being THE peculiarity of this Codex. We think the issue is now settled on this matter.
Was Philippe de Chérisey really making an allusion to the Codex Bezae (which is the origin of the small parchment), when he said in "Stone and Paper" that the small parchment was a "montage" of three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)?
• About the attempts at circumventing the subject:
F. Daffos, and other researchers following his lead, have stated that the fact that Philippe de Chérisey characterises the text of the small parchment as a "compilation of three synoptic gospels", as Jean-Luc Chaumeil writes when quoting Philippe de Chérisey in his presentation of the "Stone and Paper" document, that this fact would allegedly prove that Chérisey did not master his subject, and that he could consequently not be the author of the small parchment, the source of the latter being, as we have seen, the Codex Bezae. But these are just baseless assertions, as we are going to show, thanks to the article entitled « Histoire du manuscrit et de son texte » ("A history of the manuscript and its text"), extracted from the DAMMARILYS website » specialising in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis.
Excerpts: "The analysis of the calligraphy has enabled to date its redaction back to the years 380-420 (see note 1). [...] the elaboration of the book is not anterior to the early Vth century [...]
The ancestor of the Codex Bezae differed from the standard text of our Bibles by some missing verses, if not by other verses that were specific to it, or that it used to share with the manuscripts known as from the Western tradition, by sentence clauses, by terms, by verb conjugations, by cases, declensions, or also by the order of its words. The presence (or the absence) of a single article can carry a lot of weight in the understanding of one or another expression used by Christ.
The Gospel of John was present in it, not in the fourth, but in the second position, just after Matthew; the Vth-century copy passed on that order, which was also adopted in the Codex W 032 of Washington, whereas it was no longer customary then. This ancestor could have constituted the first collection gathering the neo-testamentary texts, and during the course of this gathering process, there has been an attempt aiming at harmonising the Gospels between themselves, since some passages of Mark and Matthew were interpolated into Luke (see note 9). More than the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John, the two books of Luke include a large number of readings specific to them. [...]"
"Note 1 - J. Irigoin dated "the Greek script of the Codex Bezae", to the first half of the Vth century (pages 3-13) and L. Holtz dated "the Latin script of the Codex Bezae" between 380 and 420 CE, (pages 14-55) - in Actes du colloque International de Lunel (27-30 juin 1994) -Transcriptions of the International Symposium of Lunel (27th-30th June 1994) - but the years 400-420 are the ones which have been retained since."
"Note 9 - Particularly the genealogy (of Christ), or also the Our Father prayer, and the calling of Levi; it is then necessary to refer to the other manuscripts in order to know the Lucan original."
This clearly signifies that the differences existing between the accounts of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), namely, their own specific textual particularities, have been deliberately erased by the redactors of Codex Bezae (early Vth century), and that they have been focusing their efforts especially on modifying the Gospel of Luke. At this stage of our reasoning, we are effectively obliged to remark that Philippe de Chérisey had specified that the small parchment, about which we know that it reproduces precisely the beginning of the chapter VI of the Gospel of Luke, from verses 1 to 4, in the version of the Codex Bezae, consisted in a mix of the three synoptic Gospels. So, the solution to the problem is at hand. All we need to do now, in order to understand it completely, is to cite a precise example, drawn from the Codex Bezae and located in this very same passage of Luke, of a "montage of synoptic Gospels" as described by Philippe de Chérisey.
Source: Article entitled "Luke 6:5 D Reexamined" (i.e. the passage of chapter VI verse 5 of the Gospel of Luke, reexamined in the version of the Codex D - Bezae) written by J. Duncan M. Derrett, published in the quarterly journal "Novum Testamentum - An International Quarterly for New Testament and Related Studies", Vol. 37, Booklet 3 (July 1995), pp. 232-248. This article comprises 17 pages. This journal is issued by the E. J. Brill publishing house, based in Leiden, the Netherlands.
Quote: "Delobel, studying Codex Bezae's handling of the Sabbath material in Luke, found 6:5 D (note: i.e. the passage of the Gospel of Luke chapter VI verse 5, in the version of the Codex D - Bezae) to be a harmonization of synoptic gospels rather than a new creation [...]"
Here is the reference of Professor Joel Delobel's work on the subject: Delobel, Joel, "Luke 6,5 in Codex Bezae: The Man Who Worked on Sabbath", in "À cause de l'Évangile", published by Editions du Cerf, in Paris, 1985, pp. 453-477.
[For 32 years (1969-2001) Professor Joel Delobel has been a member of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Faculty of Theology, K.U. Leuven.]
Thus, Professor Joel Delobel lets us know that the verse 5 of chapter 6 of Luke's Gospel in the version of the Codex Bezae (also called Codex D), i.e. the passage located immediately after the excerpt from the Codex echoed by the small parchment, contains a textual variant which cannot be found anywhere else, and which is the direct result of a "harmonisation", that is to say properly a textual montage, of several synoptic Gospels. Moreover, we learn that this modification specifically concerns the description which the Codex Bezae makes of the Sabbath, according to the now-famous phrase, unique in its kind amongst all Western-type Codices, of "Sabbato Secundo Primo" (Luke, chapter 6 verse 1, present only in the Latin text of the Codex Bezae).
In addition, this sentence from the article « Histoire du manuscrit et de son texte » ("A history of the manuscript and its text") extracted from the "Dammarilys" website specialised in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D-05): "More than the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John, the two books of Luke include a large number of readings specific to them [...]", reveals that the goal pursued by the redactors of the Codex Bezae was to adapt Luke's Gospel to the two other synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Mark), by replacing the diverging excerpts of Luke with extracts from Matthew or Mark. Consequently, the interest nourished by the creator of the small parchment for the Codex Bezae's version of the Gospel of Luke, can be explained by the very special care taken by the redactors of the Codex Bezae themselves in "editing" the text of this Gospel.
So, Philippe de Chérisey could not have been referring to anything other than the Codex Bezae, when he said that the small parchment was the result of a montage of three synoptic Gospels, since the Codex Bezae itself, most particularly in its Gospel of Luke (from which the small parchment in its entirety is a quote), is the fruit of just such a montage, executed in all likelihood as soon as the beginning of the Vth century! Likewise, considering these elements, Philippe de Chérisey could not be any other person than the creator of the small parchment.
© Isaac Ben Jacob, 7 August 2008
Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis
Théodore de Béze: et les protestants du roi
Jean-Luc Chaumeil: Le Testament du Prieuré de Sion
Isaac Ben Jacob