Just in time for Christmas:
Nehemia Gordon, Patrick Andrist, Oliver Hahn, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Nelson Calvillo, and
Ira Rabin, ‘Did the Original Scribes Write the Distigmai in Codex Vaticanus B of the Bible (Vat. gr. 1209)?’ the Vatican Library Review 3 (2024), 125–156. Click here.
Abstract: The fourth-century Greek Bible manuscript Codex Vaticanus B (Vat. gr. 1209) contains pairs of horizontally aligned marginal dots known as distigmai, which correspond to textual variants in other manuscripts. The production of the distigmai
has been variously dated to the 4th or 16th centuries. A fourth-century
date would prove the early existence of hundreds of textual variants,
many of which are otherwise only witnessed by later manuscripts. Near
infrared microscope reflectography combined with micro-X-ray
fluorescence spectroscopy proved that the distigmai, both those
categorized as “apricot” (which are visually similar to the ink of the
original main text) and “chocolate” (which are visually similar to the
reinking of the main text) were written with ink(s) made from chemically
purified vitriol, a process that only became standard in the 16th
century. As a result, there is no reasonable chance that the distigmai were written in the fourth century. Horizontal lines that have been hypothesized to function as text-critical obeloi were written in the same ink as the original main text, which differs completely from that of the distigmai. In other words, the distigmai
and horizontal lines tested were not produced during the same writing
session and are separated by more than 1,000 years, making it impossible
for them to have functioned as conjoining text-critical symbols in the
4th century.
A wonderful Christmas present. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteHere is an obvious question.
ReplyDelete“The fourth-century Greek Bible manuscript Codex Vaticanus (Vat. gr. 1209) … written in majuscule script in the fourth century …. GA 03 (= B) for the 4th century part of the New Testament‘“
What materials testing, ink and parchment, is available to confirm these bold 4th-century pseudo-facts?
Thanks!
The fourth century date was assumed in this study. This is not controversial in scholarship.
DeleteSteven, I thought you had a beef with Sinaiticus alone?
DeleteIs every single Codex now a forgery?
Hi Martijn,
DeleteQuestioning an unprovenanced and long-disputed 4th-century date (conta Sirleto, Momtfaucon, Rinck et al) is not an accusation of forgery.
It is pointing out the stubborn resistance to scientific methodology, using “consensus” or “not controversial” as the hand-wave. So we really should not have confidence in the 4th-century claim, which is now ossified as part of the Critical Text apologia, an article of faith.
Technically, Erasmus questioned the authenticity of Vaticanus and other manuscripts in the discussion of Latinization of Greek mss. coming out of the Council of Florence c. 1450. However, the Erasmus position is generally and understandably considered inoperative today, a historical footnote.
Steven
https://linktr.ee/stevenavery
Here is a fascinating paragraph from the paper:
Delete“Iron-gall inks utilize a chemical reaction between a soluble iron (II) compound (such as iron (II) sulfate) and gallic acid or tannic acid (extracted from gallnuts or tree bark). The reaction produces an ink that turns black upon oxidation in air. Iron-gall ink degrades with time, changing its color to various shades of brown.”
Yet there are many places where we see virtually jet-black ink on manuscripts (original ink or top-level of palimpsests or corrections) that are theorized to be over a millennium old.
If the statement above is correct, either they are not iron-gall ink (what are they?) or the dating of that manuscript or layer should be corrected.
My post, apologies for anonymous.
DeleteFunnily enough this article sometimes sounds a bit like Payne with its emphasis on the size of their equipment!
ReplyDeleteE.g. "We used Artax 800, a scanning 30-Watt xrf spectrom-
Deleteeter (Bruker Nano GmbH) that features a molybdenum X-
Ray tube, focusing polycapillary optics with an interaction
spot of 100 μm, and a 30mm2 sdd detector (see Figure 4)."
Does this mean we can go back to calling them umlauts??
ReplyDelete"a process that only became standard in the 16th century"
ReplyDeleteThat is hardly relevant of course, what would be relevant is the oldest MS that contains such ink.
A quick Google for "chemically purified vitriol" demonstrates that the very phrase originates from this particular study, making it even more suspect
Is this a "Move on, nothing to see here" in disguise? Has anyone read any further, and perhaps able to confirm the earliest use of such ink, whatever it may mean?
Textual study of the superior LXX A (Alex.) should take precedence over the LXX B (Vat.).
ReplyDelete