I’ve been enjoying leading some seminars for the Logos Summer School in Oxford. Yesterday we looked in some detail (!) at a page of Codex Vaticanus and enjoyed reading some of the text of Romans. Some interesting details are seen in one small portion of the page we were looking at (page 1460 according to the codex; page 1464 according to the online images).
The NA28 text has: Ἀσπάσασθε Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν τοὺς συνεργούς μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν.
Feel free to discuss this in the comments: ‘what do you see here?’
The NA28 text has: Ἀσπάσασθε Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν τοὺς συνεργούς μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν.
Feel free to discuss this in the comments: ‘what do you see here?’
There appears to be an extra nu in the left hand margin in the middle of the line break in the word συνεργούς.
ReplyDeleteThe original N is no re-inked, then the N is placed at the left of the line. Presumably different habits of word division across lines between the 4th and 11th centuries.
DeleteAlso, an "E" is added to the spelling of Prisca ("TTPEICKAN")
ReplyDelete-M.M.R.
Spelling this name with EI is already present in P46. The epsilon is carefully not re-inked.
DeleteIt's all Greek to me. Sorry, couldn't resist.
ReplyDeleteDoes it originally read εργους μους?
ReplyDeleteHi Benjamin, it seems the original scribe of Vaticanus did write εργους μους; however, I wonder if perhaps this scribe attempted to remove/blot out the additional sigma? Visually, this sigma seems the lightest letter in this section (that Peter presented here).
DeleteBenjamin, considering the opposite side of the vellum reads iota (I), I'd say there was originally a sigma in the blank space. Probably caused by parabelipsis, OYCMOYC
ReplyDelete-M.M.R.
Yes, I think so. The original error is interesting, and the care of "the thinking reinking" is also interesting.
DeleteAnother thing worth noting is the use of the two dots (diaresis) over initial upsilon in ὑπὲρ and ὑπέθηκαν alongside the rough breathing. This suggests two systems interacting rather than one complex system and that the two dots were part of the original text of Vaticanus (with e.g. Vercellone, 1868; and against Tischendorf, 1867) while the rough breathing is part of the reinker's accentuation work.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter, I apprecaite your comments on "diaresis". Because of the second "nu" offset to the left, it got me thinking about something completely different, namely, ekthesis markers and comparing other early mss for ekthesis at this section (Rom. 16:3ff).
DeleteIt seems that Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Claromontanus (D06) in the way the scribe presents ekthesis markers.
In Vaticanus, I see the scribe has a typical elongated line, written either immediately above a word and out to the left of the column, to indicate ekthesis (i.e., same in Rom 15:30, however, Παρακαλῶ starts mid-column, so the elongated line begins above the following word, δὲ in the column below).
[An interesting side note (to me)--but not related to this section-- is Rom 7:25. Sadly, because P46 is lacunae from 6:16-8:14, we cannot know exactly how the phrase was written, i.e., "Thanks be to God..." or "I thank God..." Indeed, Vaticanus has χάρις τῷ θω; whereas Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus have Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θω. The corrector of Sinaiticus has marginalia, χάρις δὲ.... And lastly, Claromontanus (D06) has Ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ.]
It is probably worth distinguishing ekthesis (positioning of the first letter or so of a line out into the marginal space) from paragraphos (the small line to indicate a paragraph). Vaticanus does have paragraphs, but a short previous line of text is the only infallible guide to them. The paragraphoi are not original to the text of Vaticanus.
DeleteThank you for the clarification and additional info about distinguishing points concerning "ekthesis" and "paragraphoi" markers. I would have to spend time looking at Vaticanus for the "infallible guide" to the short previous line of a text. I did not realize the "paragraphoi"are not original to the text of Vaticanus. From looking at Vaticanus (and not the CSNTM version) I see now that the "paragraphoi" markers appear to be from a different hand than the original scribal hand. Fascinating! Thanks again, Pete.
DeleteSinaiticus, for example, has some very small sigmas and some very small epsilons that are indistinguishable from each other. Did Vaticanus's exemplar have a very small epsilon in the word εΝ, which the scribe mistook for a sigma? I guess you could look for other such cases.
ReplyDeleteThis is awesome! Just seeing the input from the different comments has directed me back to the text to see what else I missed. ETC at its best!
ReplyDeleteTim
Hi Tim, yes, the ETC Blog is wonderful and enriching. Dirk Jongkind's latest small publication, "An Introduction to the Greek New Testament- produced at Tyndale House" (2019, 124 pages) is an excellent resource (along with the THGNT)! The Center for New Testament Restoration (https://greekcntr.org/collation/index.htm) is also a great resource. Along with the online digital resources it makes for wonderful studying of early Greek mss.
DeleteAlistair,
DeleteThanks for the ‘heads up’ on The Center for New Testament Restoration!
Dirk’s book is already on order!
Thanks again,
Tim
Tim,
DeleteYou are most welcome.
Have you checked out "The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts" (http://www.csntm.org/)? A most excellent resource!
Best,
Alistair
Thanks a lot Alistair.
DeleteI didn't know the CNTR website, it is really a treasure!
And the fact that you can also see the image of the manuscript and study it yourself.
Do you know if Alan Bunning is active here on the blog?
Yes, I pipe up every once and a while.
DeleteThanks, Alan, for your marvelous contributions in the CNTR. Your updated website is a gem!
Delete