▼

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Some Features in Vaticanus

by 10
Mike Bird posted a portion of Vaticanus which he had used in tormenting his Greek students. Good for him for using manuscripts in his Greek classes. But this clip also has at least three other interesting features:
a) the letters not re-inked (e.g. the final nu in ESTIN, line 8)
b) the use of an umlaut/distigma to signal a word order variant in line 5 (not in the margin)
c) an error (I think) in the apparatus of NA27 re the same word order variant in line 5: NA27 has B* supporting the NA27 txt line: IDEIN PROFHTHN. It is obviously more likely that I am wrong than NA27, but I can't figure out how/why at the moment.


The clip is as follows

Tags: ,

10 comments

  1. Anonymous5/21/2009 2:10 pm

    You are correct, Peter. NA27 is wrong as the transcription of said passage in NTTranscripts (http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de:80/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv) demonstrates:

    φιεσμενον ιδου οι τα
    μαλακα φορουντες
    εν τοις οικοις των βα
    σιλεων 9 αλλα τι εξηλθα
    τε προφητην ιδειν ναι
    λεγω υμιν και περισσο
    τερον προφητου 10 ου
    τος εστιν περι ου γε
    γραπται ιδου εγω απο
    στελλω τον αγγελον
    μου προ προσωπου σου

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ulrich Schmid5/21/2009 2:12 pm

    Sorry, the previous post was mine. I forgot to signe it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter M. Head5/21/2009 2:53 pm

    Thanks Ulrich,
    That is helpful confirmation (that I wasn't going crazy).
    I should also have noted the marginal diple signalling an OT citation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ulrich Schmid5/21/2009 4:39 pm

    Concerning the diple it seems worth pointing out that they have not been reinforced. In my view this likely indicates that the diple belonged to the original production unit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5/21/2009 5:55 pm

    Yet above the "P" of PROFHTHN one may see, presumably, the two dots that used to lie above the "I" of IDEIN. So if it is a correction by the original hand, it can hardly be called a reading of the first hand, right?

    Indeed, Tischendorf in his transcription notes: "litterae PROF rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF. daturus erat."

    Jonathan C. Borland

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter M. Head5/21/2009 7:15 pm

    That could be an alternative explanation - an underlying IDEIN, but is any of it visible?

    ReplyDelete
  7. maurice a robinson5/21/2009 10:22 pm

    I think the simplest explanation is that the original scribe merely leaped forward over PROFHTHN and began to write IDEIN, but only as far as the initial Iota with the double-dot breathing mark. After catching his error, he continued with the correct PROFHTHN of his exemplar, leaving the double-dots over the Pi as inconsequential.

    No need to presume some sort of "internal umlaut" to categorize this one, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. christian magazine5/22/2009 1:27 am

    Indeed, Tischendorf in his transcription notes: "litterae PROF rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF. daturus erat."


    --- great... i missed this... thanks for pointing this out

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter M. Head5/22/2009 9:50 am

    You are right. I should not have presumed the interpretation of the double dots. As i tell my students - separate the observation of the data from the interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wieland Willker5/24/2009 12:17 pm

    I have a little file on that problem in my commentary:
    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/prob/Mt-11-9-B.pdf

    (The variant is discussed in the "Minor variants" file for Mt)

    ReplyDelete