Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Minuscule 372

7
GA 372 is a 16th century parchment manuscript in the Vatican (Vat. gr. 1161), which looks like a printed book. Apparently it is handwritten, but if that is the case, it is hard not to imagine that it must have been copied from a printed book: the page and chapter numbers, the variety in the fonts, the woodcut type intials.



Is there someone who could figure out which edition underlies the text? I don’t think the font looks like an Estienne font, Colines perhaps?

Update 14.ii.2019:
Thanks to Teunis van Lopik (see comments) we can solve the issue of the script of this manuscript. The script comes from Johannes Honorius who is mentioned in all three volumes of the Repertorium der griechischen Kopiisten (I 174, II 232, III 286).  I,  p.100: “His script formed the basis for the font of  the pontifical press. Honorius’s script has clearly influenced that of anonymous co-workers, and the manuscripts below are possibly not all written by him personally.”

An example of the print type of his script is found here (notice Honorius’s name after TYPUS; click through on the title).
A British Library MS (Harley 5732) by Honorius is found here.

Which leaves only the trivial question of the text of GA 372.

7 comments

  1. Did any printed Greek New Testaments exist at that time which had texts that fit the way von Soden, Wisse, and the Alands characterize the text of 372?

    "Classified as Ia by von Soden, which would make it "Western" or "Cæsarean." Wisse does not find a relationship to the major manuscripts of either group, but concedes that it has a mixed text, which he describes as 'very strange.' The Alands do not assign 372 to any Category; this at least seems to confirm that it is not purely Byzantine."
    http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1-500.html#m372

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the PA were present, it would be relatively simple to identify at least the most plausible printed edition; however, GA372 ends at Jn 3:3, so no help forthcoming from the PA quarter.

    My best suggestion (assuming it is a copy of some printed TR), would be to compare key passages noted in the various collated TR editions, given as an appendix in Hoskier's Codex 604 [GA700] volume.

    ReplyDelete
  3. the title looks a little unusual (especially the placement of that article): EUAGGELION TO KATA MATTHAION

    ReplyDelete
  4. See the guess of Gregory in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf 8. Is Johannes Honorius the scribe of GA 372 (Vat. Gr. 1161)?
    Compare: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/copiste-possesseur-autre/378/
    About Honorius also, Vogel/Gardthausen: https://archive.org/details/diegriechischens00vogeuoft/page/180
    Compare GA 372 in VMR with GA 2583. (https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/68906/)
    My guess: is GA 372 copied for cardinal Sirlet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GA 2891 is copied by Honorius. It in Sirlet's possession.
      https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/44695/
      Compare the numbering of the pages of GA 372 and GA 2891.
      GA 2891 was in the hands of Mattheai. See in VMR pageID 60 and compare with the appendix to Matthaei's NT, vol. 3, 1807, p. 102.

      Delete
  5. GA 372 and the Roman Greek NT project of 1560/61. A hypothesis, to be or not to be falsificated.
    The Tridentine Fathers decided to support editions of liturgical books and Bibles. The LXX is published in 1587 by Pope Sixtus V. In 1590 the Sixtine Vulgate is published and in 1592 its revision of Pope Clemens VIII.
    Two projects to publish the Greek New Testament failed.
    About 1617 Pope Paulus V did not dare to publish the text prepared by a congregation led by Roberto Bellermino.
    Earlier in 1560-1561 a congregation of four cardinals, assisted by Guglielmo Sirleto worked on the text of the Vulgate and the Greek New Testament.
    Some documents, produced during the existence of this congregation, are still available. To this small collection I will add GA 372.
    GA 372, probably copied by Johannes Honorius or by a scribe from his school, is not a "normal" transcription of a NT codex. The outfit (borders, initalis, page numbers) looks like a printed Western book. Is GA 372 produced as a printer copy of a Roman Greek NT?
    In 1561 the publishing of the Vulgate and the Greek NT failed. The difference between the text of the Vulgate, the Greek NT and the quotations from the fathers made the members of this first congregation to much troubles.
    When we consider GA 372 as an editorial text of Sirleto c.s., the extraordinary text of GA 372 (as is concluded by Scholz, Von Soden and Wisse) can be explained: Sirleto was able to use collations of readings of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae.
    There are indications that GA 372 is not incomplete by loss of pages. I suppose that it is not finished. Matthew, Mark and Luke are opening with typographical-like borders and ornamental capitals. The last page of GA 372 has the number 199. The border and intitial capital of John on page 195 are not calligraphed. I suppose, because the scribe left the job. Is GA 372 not finished because the edition of the Greek NT was cancelled?

    ReplyDelete