Evangelical Textual Criticism

Friday, October 27, 2006

Minuscule Manuscript Seminar 2




















Up-date: if you are curious about the date of this manuscript, then this may help:








Up-date: here are two more photos:


























Up-date: a picture of fol. 37v with the Ammonian section numbers, but no Canon numbers:






















Further Up-date: Here is a photo of S (028 = AD 949), which (as has been noted in the comments) was written within four months of 1582 (above). Spot the difference!

36 comments:

  1. Any thoughts?
    Identification of the text (shouldn't take long!).
    Features of the manuscript?
    Any differences in the minuscule features from ms 461 we looked at last week?
    Identification of the actual manuscript?
    Opinions on date?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously: iota adscript + accent over the iota not the eta.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Much to PJW's delight, I'm sure, it shows that the real Johannine prologue is 1.1-5 (though obviously there may be other breaks later in the ms.)!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I recognized where the image comes from, so count me out on the identification. Interesting is the correction in verse 3 (if I see that corectly): OUDEN ] OUDE EN, and of course the punctuation (colon after O GEGONEN).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jan,
    The photo is not too clear, but I'm sure you are right on OUDEN as the original reading - an attempted erasure and correction to OUDE EN is squeezed in here (that is in any case reasonable during the minuscule period, as OUDE EN is the Byz reading).

    That could link this manuscript with Sinaiticus which has the same original text and a correction: http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/GA01_048a.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. larrybkj: Isn't it minuscule 1582?

    yes, it is.

    ετους ϛυνζ= 6457 (after creation) = 949 C.E.
    Athos Vatopediou 949=Gr.-Al. 1582

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes it is 1582. There were at least four ways to figure that out:
    i) the variant already noted in verse 3: OUDEN to OUDE EN is noted in Swanson as 1582* and 1582c (the only comparable ms is Sinaiticus, which this is not!);
    ii) the date as 6457 = AD 948 or 949
    iii) The introductions to the gospels are pretty characteristic of 1582 (I'll up-load some others in a minute or two);
    iv) I scanned the photo in from Aland & Aland

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyway, what do we know about 1582?
    And what developments can we see in the minuscule hand over about one century (from 835 to 949)?
    And why is the dating colophon in a different hand from the main text? [we may need Amy to answer this one]

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a teaser, here is an excerpt from a footnote in my forthcoming dissertation, The Epistle of Jude:Its Text and Transmission (ConBNT 43; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006):

    "In a recently published monograph, Amy S. Anderson studies another manuscript, 1582, copied by the same scribe [as 1739], Ephraim the monk (The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew [NTTS 32; Leiden: Brill, 2004]). Anderson suggests that the two MSS [1582 and 1739] are separately descended from a copy of the entire NT furnished with marginalia (ibid., 71-72). A comment on Matt 13:35 in 1582 shows that the scribe did have clear text-critical opinions (ibid., 63-64). However, there are no clear instances of this attitude in 1739. Apparently, the marginal comments in 1582 contain several references to patristic works and in my opinion the obscure reference to Origen in the margin of 1739 [at Jude 9] is best interpreted thus."

    ReplyDelete
  10. PH: And why is the dating colophon in a different hand from the main text? [we may need Amy to answer this one]

    The colophon was written by another scribe, who says that he had seen the original colophon and copied it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ... and the complete transcription of the colophon:

    Line 1: ειδον τους ετους εξανεγραφυ εγραφυ
    Line 2: χυρι εφραιμ μχ [= μοναχου] εν μεραις ιε μη [= μηνι] νο [= νοεμβριω] κγ ινδ ζ
    Line 3: ετους ϛυνζ

    So, apparently this last leaf is not the original, but has been replaced later.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...oops,

    I just realized that the MS was copied in November if we should trust the colophon. Then the correct date is 948 C.E. (and not 949 C.E. as I said in an earlier comment), since the Byzantine year began on September 1. 6457-5509 (the year of creation) = 948.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks Tommy,

    Your transcription of the date colophon is very close to that of Amy Anderson (p. 5). Seems to be some rather strange spelling. Perhaps it means something like:

    'I saw the date written out, written by the hand of Ephraim the monk, "in the 15th part [hour?], of the month of November 23rd, indiction 7; AD 6457".'

    Is there a problem with this indiction for 948? Seems like indiction 7 should be 949. Is this why 'scholars differ'?

    ReplyDelete
  14. TW refered to AA: "Anderson suggests that the two MSS [1582 and 1739] are separately descended from a copy of the entire NT furnished with marginalia (ibid., 71-72)."

    It is an interesting suggestion/speculation, but I wonder if the different time-frames and methods of citation are sufficiently accounted for.
    1739 cites fathers up to Basil (only once), who died 379. No references to Chrysostom, Theodore, Cyril, all of whom feature in 1582 (latest date, d. 444 Cyril). This could put the two archetypes over 60 years apart.
    Secondly, 1582 only refers to church fathers in extended discussions of Mark 16 and John 7/8 (I think); whereas 1739 refers throughout to readings associated with church fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. PH:

    "Your transcription of the date colophon is very close to that of Amy Anderson (p. 5)."

    What were the differences? (I don't have Anderson's monograph here, just some copied portions.)

    Regarding your translation I would put the double quotation mark before "written." It seems to me that only the four first words are from the second scribe.

    PH: "Is there a problem with this indiction for 948? Seems like indiction 7 should be 949."

    Since this is a "seminar" getting somewhat technical I will cite from Scrivener's Introduction (I, appendix C, pp. 380-81):

    "Mediaeval Greek MSS. are dated sometimes by the year of indiction, sometimes by the year of the world according to the era of Constantinople, sometimes by both indiction and year of the world. The Indiction was a cycle of fifteen years, which are severally styled Indiction 1, Indiction 2, &c., up to Indiction 15, when the series begins afresh ... The Greeks made use of the Indiction of Constantinople [calculated from the 1st of September 312 C.E.]. To find the indiction of a year of the Christian era, add 3 to the year (because A.D. 1=Indiction 4), and divide the sum by 15: if nothing remains, the indiction will be 15; if there is a remainder, it will be the number of the indiction. But it must not be forgotten that the Indiction of Constantinople begins on the first of September, and consequently that the last four months of a year of the Christian era belong to the next indiction year."

    ReplyDelete
  16. maurice a robinson11:23 pm, October 30, 2006

    A point that perhaps could be of some interest beyond mere trivia:

    In relation to the date of MS 1582 (either 948 or 949), the uncial S/028 of the gospels was also written and dated as being copied in approximately the same year (949).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks Tommy,
    I think seminars on manuscripts often get a little technical, but that is part of the fun isn't it? There are always new things to learn about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks Maurice,
    That is definitely worth noting. Do you have any general feeling for the different types of text preserved in majuscule compared with minuscule manuscripts in the period in which they overlapped? For example, it appears that the late majuscules are pretty straightforwardly Byzantine in text, whereas some of the early minuscules preserve various non straightforwardly Byzantine texts. But would this be barking up a gum tree on the basis of a limited sample?

    ReplyDelete
  19. PH: "I think seminars on manuscripts often get a little technical, but that is part of the fun isn't it? There are always new things to learn about."

    Absolutely, I enjoy it tremendously, and I learn new things all the time. I just hope as many as possible can join us in that process.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MAR: "... the uncial S/028 of the gospels was also written and dated as being copied in approximately the same year (949)"

    ...and this is the only extant *dated* Greek NT uncial with continuous text. It belongs to the "Slavonic" class of Greek writing from which the Slavonic writing was formed.

    There are also a couple of dated uncial lectionaries, e.g., L150 (the Harleian lectionary, dated to 995), L181 (the Curzon lectionary, dated to 980), L847 (dated to 967).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Re S (Vaticanus Gr. 354). Metzger reports the dating colophon from fol. 234v in ET 'that it was written by "Michael, monk [and] sinner," who finished his work "in the month of March, the fifth day, the sixth hour, the year (of the world) 6457, the seventh indiction)." ' (Metzger, MGB, 110).

    That seems pretty early in the morning to finish of a Gospel manuscript.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have up-loaded a scan of a page of S/028 for those who want to see a sample.

    ReplyDelete
  23. maurice a robinson2:49 pm, October 31, 2006

    PMH: Do you have any general feeling for the different types of text preserved in majuscule compared with minuscule manuscripts in the period in which they overlapped? . . .[ W]ould this be barking up a gum tree on the basis of a limited sample?

    In general, the uncials of the 9th-10th century will be of a Byzantine variety quite similar to that found in the bulk of the minuscules from the same era. While there are exceptions (i.e., minuscules with a less than Byzantine type of text), these are not limited to the minuscules of the “early” era, but may derive from any copying date.(e.g., MS 1 of fam.1 is from the 12th century; MS 13 of fam. 13 from the 13th century; the somewhat Alexandrian MS 1241 is of the 12th century). Since a MS of “late” date easily could be copied from one of “early date,” the date of a given MS says little about the type or quality of text it contains. The most that can be said in relation to a given MS (or version, or father) is that it provides a convenient terminus ad quem for the existence of a particular reading or pattern of readings that otherwise lacks attestation at an earlier date.

    TW: There are also a couple of dated uncial lectionaries ...

    And one should keep in mind that uncial lectionaries extend even into the 11th century (e.g. L-3) and beyond (e.g., L-6, L-13, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just a couple of additional points on 1582 (I think they are all from Anderson).

    1) Ephraim preserved line lengths and other layout features of his exemplar (definitely in the case of his Polybius, arguable in the case of 1582).

    2) Kephalaia are provided in semi-majuscule; and Ammonian sections are numbered throughout (but not with the Eusebian canons).

    3) Ephraim had a 'trademark small cross' which he wrote 'in the upper margin of the first side of many of the gatherings' (p. 20 - unfortunately this doesn't seem to be visible on any of the plates).

    4) Anderson rates 1582 as the best witness to the family 1 text (better than 1), a text which goes back to a text akin to that used by Origen.

    5) A corrector in the twelfth century (or so) corrected the text against a Byzantine type text (as we saw in John 1.3).

    6) Anderson recommends further research into the texts of Mark, Luke and John in 1582; and into the family 1 text generally, especially taking into account the conclusion that 1582 is its best representative.


    NB. For a review of Anderson see http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol10/Anderson2005rev.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. PH: "Anderson rates 1582 as the best witness to the family 1 text (better than 1), a text which goes back to a text akin to that used by Origen."

    In 1950, A.W. Kim stated:

    "When Kirsopp Lake edited Codex 1 of the Gospels and Its Allies, Codex 1582 was not available to him. Later he recognized Codex 1582 as a member of Family 1, but he did not see direct connection between Codd. 1-1582 and Origen's text. Codex 1582 and Codex 1 are regarded as inferior witnesses to the Caesarean text of Mark by Streeter, Lake and others. Von Soden recognized the importance of these two codices and spearated them from the rest of Family 1. He was right in saying that the archetype of Family 1 and others should be sought in Codex 1 and Codex 1582, but he did not see the connection between these two codices and Origen's text."

    Then Kim gives several examples of the critical notes and textual variants in 1582 in order to illustrate "the scribe's intelligent interest in textual questions," and says, "The general nature of the text of Codex 1582 and the references in the notes of the codex lead me to believe that the text of Codex 1582 is a result of a scholarly recension. It is beyond doubt that the basis of such a recension must have been Origen's text."

    The article ends with a note "This paper is merely a preliminary report on Codex 1582. I hope to publish a complete study of the Codex in collaboration with Dr. Silva Lake who possesses some valuable information on the Codex" (A.W. Kim, "Codices 1582, 1739 and Origen," JBL 69 [1950]: 174-75).

    ...it seems that a "complete" study is yet to appear, although Anderson's monograph covers a lot of ground.

    PH: "Anderson recommends further research into the texts of Mark, Luke and John in 1582;"

    I believe a study on Mark in 1582 is under way in Birmingham.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Greetings, friends,
    Sorry, I did not know of your discussion of 1582 until last Thursday and that knowledge was followed within minutes by the news that my daughter had broken her wrist and needed to go to the emergency room.

    There are perhaps a few tidbits here and there that I could add:

    First of all, TW said...

    As a teaser, here is an excerpt from a footnote in my forthcoming dissertation, The Epistle of Jude:Its Text and Transmission (ConBNT 43; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2006):

    "In a recently published monograph, Amy S. Anderson studies another manuscript, 1582, copied by the same scribe [as 1739], Ephraim the monk (The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew [NTTS 32; Leiden: Brill, 2004]). Anderson suggests that the two MSS [1582 and 1739] are separately descended from a copy of the entire NT furnished with marginalia (ibid., 71-72)...."

    I would prefer to say that "Anderson cautiously suggests that the two MSS MAY be descended from a common archetype, etc." Neville Birdsall felt I was being too cautious here, but I do not think the evidence is strong. It is more of an intriguing possibility because of the parallel history of the two MSS.

    TW goes on to say:

    "A comment on Matt 13:35 in 1582 shows that the scribe did have clear text-critical opinions (ibid., 63-64). However, there are no clear instances of this attitude in 1739. Apparently, the marginal comments in 1582 contain several references to patristic works and in my opinion the obscure reference to Origen in the margin of 1739 [at Jude 9] is best interpreted thus."

    Here I would disagree with you. I do not think that Ephraim, though an intelligent and alert scribe actually wrote any of the marginalia himself. My assertion is that he is exactly copying his exemplar.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you for the welcome, Peter, I wish I were more of a computer person so that I'd take part more consistently. :-)

    PH said...

    "Just a couple of additional points on 1582 (I think they are all from Anderson).

    2) Kephalaia are provided in semi-majuscule; and Ammonian sections are numbered throughout (but not with the Eusebian canons)."

    Peter, I'm not sure if you mean the canon tables or the canon markings. The canon tables are in 1582 on purple parchment (possibly inserted later). I don't think these are complete, there don't seem to be enough tables, but the microfilm is not readable. See p. 8, footnote 16.

    If you mean the markings in the margins, that's what I meant by the Ammonian sections. Have I got that confused? Isn't it the Ammonion section numbering that was used to produce the Eusebian tables? p.20.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PH said:
    "3) Ephraim had a 'trademark small cross' which he wrote 'in the upper margin of the first side of many of the gatherings' (p. 20 - unfortunately this doesn't seem to be visible on any of the plates)."

    I didn't realize until now that none of the plates of 1582 include the cross. There is one on the picture of the Metrica, upper left hand, plate xvii. The placement is somewhat different in the Metrica, but that's what they look like, very simple and tiny.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Amy,
    Re the Ammonian Sections. From what I can see your statement in the book is almost perfectly correct: 'The Ammonian sections are written in the inner margins' (p. 20).
    The interesting thing is that normally the Ammonian sections are accompanied by an additional number reflecting the number of the Eusebian Canon that you need to check in order to find the parallels in the other gospels. That is how they are normally (and as they are in NA27 inner margin). The interesting thing about 1582 is that it has the Ammonian section numbers alone. See e.g. plate XXV: this shows numbers in the margin (actually looks like the outer margin to me - that may be the only problem with your statement above, and I may be wrong, the picture is not completely clear):
    RLZ, RLH, RLQ, RM (i.e. 137-140 = Matt 13.31-36ff).
    But as they are presented here they are only useful for finding where you are, they are not useful for cross-referencing. In other words they are not functioning in the way that Eusebius (following Ammonius) intended.
    It would also follow from this that the canon tables are not integral to this manuscript.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Amy,
    Re the small cross. Thanks for that. I was wondering whether it might have been something of a theological signature, which, as I now see from the picture and re-reading the comments in your book it wasn't, more of a quire-gathering marker.
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I shall up-load a picture of the page so people can see what I'm talking about re the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Back from a trip, just some final response to Amy:

    AA: "I would prefer to say that 'Anderson cautiously suggests that the two MSS MAY be descended from a common archetype, etc.'"

    OK, sorry for my "overinterpretation."

    TW:

    "A comment on Matt 13:35 in 1582 shows that the scribe did have clear text-critical opinions." However, there are no clear instances of this attitude in 1739."

    AA:

    "Here I would disagree with you. I do not think that Ephraim, though an intelligent and alert scribe actually wrote any of the marginalia himself. My assertion is that he is exactly copying his exemplar."

    TW: Yes, but *my* point was that the comment on Matt 13:35 implies that the scribe at this point is being critical towards what he is copying from his exemplar. It will be interesting to study all marginal comments to look for more examples. Do you not see more than one layer in the marginal comments?

    all for now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. TW:

    "A comment on Matt 13:35 in 1582 shows that the scribe did have clear text-critical opinions." However, there are no clear instances of this attitude in 1739."

    AA:

    "Here I would disagree with you. I do not think that Ephraim, though an intelligent and alert scribe actually wrote any of the marginalia himself. My assertion is that he is exactly copying his exemplar."

    TW: Yes, but *my* point was that the comment on Matt 13:35 implies that the scribe at this point is being critical towards what he is copying from his exemplar. It will be interesting to study all marginal comments to look for more examples. Do you not see more than one layer in the marginal comments?

    AA: Just a final response to this question by Tommy two years ago(! Sorry!). No, I do not see more than one layer in the marginal comments in 1582. I think they were all in the exemplar, none were created by Ephraim.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear asanders =Amy Anderson,

    it is very interesting that one can resume discussion on this blog after two years! Although the discussion is likely to be noted only by the team of bloggers, who have some kind of commentfeed function.

    To that question of the marginal comment, I think my initial suggestion, that the scribe of 1582 had clear text-critical opinions, was inspired by a comment to that effect in a review by the late Neville Birdsall of your book, but I may be mistaken (you must have read the review if there was such). After all, it has been two years since I wrote the comment. And, of course, you are the expert on that MS, so I humbly bow for your authority in this matter.

    ReplyDelete