In a recent article (D. Lincicum, ‘Two Overlooked Greek Manuscripts of 1 Clement’ Vig. Cr. 73 (2019), 241–253) David Lincicum provides evidence that a Greek manuscript of 1 Clement in the National Library of Greece—EBE 1896—is a direct copy from Codex Alexandrinus’ text of 1 Clement, from a point in time prior to its arrival in London in 1627 (because of its association with other texts of Alexandrian provenance). This manuscript ‘offers us an important sighting of a notable Codex before it came to the attention of western scholars’ (p. 253). (It also offers a glimpse of the manuscript before it was trimmed for binding in London—so more text is visible in the heading field of the codex.)
Fascinating.
ReplyDeleteSo when Alexandrinus was trimmed for binding, heading text was removed, and the content of that text was not recorded prior to doing that?
I gather from the way the OP is worded that EBE 1896 only contains 1 Clement and not any other part of Alexandrinus. Is that correct?
Also, what's the second overlooked manuscript?
Note the abstract mentioning both mss:
Delete"This short article presents two late Greek manuscripts that partially preserve the text of 1 Clement. The first, BNF Suppl. gr. 64, fols. 105-112v (‘P’) is a 15th century manuscript containing 1 Clem. 40.5-60.4a, in a textual form affiliated with Codex Hierosolymitanus (Taphou 54). The second, EBE 1896, fols. 205-223 (‘E’), contains 1 Clement from the incipit through 31.3, and appears to be an apograph of Codex Alexandrinus."
So when Alexandrinus was trimmed for binding, heading text was removed, and the content of that text was not recorded prior to doing that?
DeleteI found no record of it being preserved, but I also doubt the handlers considered paratext to be of much importance.