Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lxx] Digest Number 220

Expand Messages
  • Larry Swain
    ... Don t confuse punctuation with colometry, though related, they are not the same. ... No, I mean a KOLA, in Greek, hence colometry . ... I don t there. I
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:
      > > Sentences: the technical term is colometry. Both Vaticanus and
      > > Sinaiticus have some of their "books" written in a style in which
      > > sense clauses are seperated from one another, this seems to be a
      > > feature of the fourth century onwards, and Jerome took it up as well
      > > for the VUlgate, per cola et commata, and the earliest Vulgate codex
      > > is written in this way as well.
      > >
      > Hmmm. I'm not sure on this, Larry. These MSS are both written in
      > scriptio continua. Unfortunately, I don't have my facsimiles handy at
      > the moment to check, but Alexandrinus - on which my current study is
      > focusing - does use punctuation, though pretty haphazardly.

      Don't confuse punctuation with colometry, though related, they are not the same.



      >It, too, is
      > written scriptio continua. It thus has, in maybe 50% of the text,
      > something corresponding somewhat to modern sentences or verses: is this
      > what you mean by "sense clauses"?

      No, I mean a KOLA, in Greek, hence "colometry".



      >As for Sinaiticus, please look at this
      > page (
      > http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv2?seq=5
      > ) of Tischendorff's psuedo facsimile (not 100% true to the original, but
      > pretty close) and point out where you see "sense clauses" differentiated.

      I don't there. I said in some of their books, not all. Specifically, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, and Sirach are written per cola et commata in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The images you point to regrettably contain none of these books.

      > The only thing I see in the way of textual division is something akin to
      > paragraphing - though "letter squeezing" may also have some sort of
      > signifigance to text-division. For now, I remain largely unconvinced
      > regarding your "sense clauses" assertion. My comments apply mainly to the
      > OT portions of the MSS in question, as should be evident
      >
      > Now, on colometry. Following Metzger (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible), I
      > understand "colometry" to refer specifically to the versification evident
      > in the poetic books. By this I mean the special way they were written
      > out, using a great deal more whitespace on the page than the prose
      > segments - something akin to the special formatting typically used for
      > poetry under modern printing conventions (see the page at the link
      > provided above for a prose segment of Sinaticus [
      > http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv2?seq=5
      > ] and compare it to a poetic segment as seen here
      > http://209.19.227.169:8083/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv3?seq=5
      > ). In these segments of the MSS, beginnings and endings of "sentences"
      > or "sense clauses" is much more evident than in the prose segments. It
      > seems to me that you understand colometry as something more along
      > the lines of sentence division rather than, say, stich division: from
      > whence does your understanding derive? Please don't take offense at
      > my asking this, Larry. My own notion is that these terms are not terribly
      > well defined (at least not in biblical studies) and thus can have a range
      > of meanings. At the same time, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that
      > my laziness or denseness has kept me from learning the term's proper
      > signification. Can we put our heads together and come to some
      > understanding about this?

      Stichometry is different than colometry. Stichometry is the counting of the number of stichoi, the average hexamter line of 16 syllables of app. 35-36 letters. Since you have Metzger there, look at plate 6, standing between the end of Romans in p46 and the beginning of Hebrews is the abbreviation for "stichoi" and the number 1000. This is entirely different than spacing between clauses, look at Metzger's plate 19 from Codex Bezae. Regrettably from the NT, from Luke, but you'll see what is meant by colometry.
      BTW, I just noted that if you have Metzger, look at his section on Stichometry and Colometry and you'll see that he agrees with my take, even gives the books of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in a foot note.

      Larry Swain
      --
      ____________________________________________
      http://www.operamail.com
      Get OperaMail Premium today - USD 29.99/year


      Powered by Outblaze
    • James Miller
      You know Larry, it really sounds as if, in the overall, you re saying that the colometric form in which the poetic books of the OT were written in the Great
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        You know Larry, it really sounds as if, in the overall, you're saying that
        the colometric form in which the poetic books of the OT were written in
        the Great Uncials became a sort of standard for the way biblical books
        in general were written after the 4th century ('Sentences: the technical
        term is colometry. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have some of their
        "books" written in a style in which sense clauses are seperated from one
        another, this seems to be a feature of the fourth century onwards, and
        Jerome took it up as well.') Is that really the impression you want to
        leave with our list's readers?

        Just curious, James
      • Robert Kraft
        Very interesting discussion. It has sent me back to dear old Swete s Intro to the OT in Greek (which is also online somewhere), 344ff. I can see why I hadn t
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Very interesting discussion. It has sent me back to dear old Swete's Intro to
          the OT in Greek (which is also online somewhere), 344ff. I can see why I hadn't
          paid much attention to "colometry," but should have, since it seems to be a
          special subset of "stichometry," in a way. Here is the gist of Swete's
          treatment:

          "1. We begin with the shorter divisions, known as stixoi, kwla, or kommata.
          (a) Stixos, Lat. Versus, is properly a series of objects placed in a row. ...
          When applied to the art of writing, the word signifies a continuous line of
          letters or syllables. The extent of an author's literary work was measured by
          the stichi he had written. ... The 'line' might be measured in various ways, as
          by the limits imposed upon the scribe by the breadth of his papyrus, or in the
          case of poetry by the number of feet in the metre; or again it might be fixed in
          each instance by the requirements of the sense; or it might depend upon a purely
          conventional standard." Then he discusses the "convention" in prose texts of
          stixoi either of 37-38 letters, imitating Homeric hexameter, or of 28-29
          letters, imitating Iambic trimeter. "Such a system served more than one useful
          purpose. Besides facilitating reference, it regulated the pay of the scribe, and
          consequently the price of the book. ..."

          "(b) Besides this conventional measurement there existed another system which
          regulated the length of the line by the sense. Sense-divisions were commonly
          known as kwla or kommata. The colon, according to Suidas, is a line which forms
          a complete clause [[Suida uses "stixos" to designate the line as defined]]; the
          comma is a shorter colon. This arrangement was originally used in transcribing
          poetry, but before Jerome's time it had been applied to the great prose authors"
          (followed by various quotations from Jerome and others).... Specimens of
          colometry may be seen in Codd. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, where the poetical
          books are written in cola of such length that the scribe has been compelled to
          limit himself in this part of his work to two columns instead of dividing his
          page into three or four."

          This is not very clear to me, and somewhat different from what I've observed in
          the early fragments, in which the "sense units" do not correspond to lines, but
          may begin in the middle of a line and extend to the next or beyond. I also find
          at least one example of multi-line units, set off by the use of spacing and of
          enlarged letters. And, indeed, one example of complete word division, in a first
          century (or turn of the era) Greek biblical MS from Nahal Hever. If I'm reading
          Swete correctly, for him a kwla is its own line -- thus the need for wider
          columns in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I've always considered that a stichos, but
          perhaps a special type, a "sense stichos" rather than an arbitrary/conventional
          one (to use Swete's terms). Apparently we need to refine the terminology
          further?

          Very interesting. Thanks for all the valuable input, uh, pedagogy!

          Bob

          --
          Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
          227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
          kraft@...
          http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
        • Larry J. Swain
          ... saying that ... written in ... books ... technical ... from one ... and ... want to ... At least in Latin mss, it seems to have become standard for a
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, James Miller <jamtat@m...> wrote:
            > You know Larry, it really sounds as if, in the overall, you're
            saying that
            > the colometric form in which the poetic books of the OT were
            written in
            > the Great Uncials became a sort of standard for the way biblical
            books
            > in general were written after the 4th century ('Sentences: the
            technical
            > term is colometry. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have some of their
            > "books" written in a style in which sense clauses are seperated
            from one
            > another, this seems to be a feature of the fourth century onwards,
            and
            > Jerome took it up as well.') Is that really the impression you
            want to
            > leave with our list's readers?
            >
            > Just curious, James

            At least in Latin mss, it seems to have become standard for a while,
            James. Jerome tells us in his preface to Isaiah that he has done the
            prophets in cola et commata which he says he is imitating from
            Demosthenes and Tully. He states something similar for Ezekiel.
            From what can be gathered from Jerome's comments here and elsewhere
            that he did the prophets and the poetical books per cola et commata
            and then did the whole Bible that way, something taken up eagerly and
            quickly in Latin speaking monasteries for ease of liturgical use.
            Many of the early Vulgate mss and some of the Old Latin ones are
            written in this way, I've already directed you to Codex Bezae in
            which both the Greek and Latin follow this format. Cassiodorus'
            codex grandior had it (caveat here that I don't have time to explain--
            always a problem when doing this sort of thing late at night) and
            Codex Amiatinus and the Lindisfarne Gospels and other early medieval
            mss have it as well. I've seen some Greek biblical manuscripts post
            sixth century use it, but can't say that it was the common way of
            dealing with it in Byzantine mss.

            So the original statement I think a sound one. We don't find it much
            before the fourth century, except in poetry and sometimes in drama,
            although it was invented, according to Dionysius of Halicanarssus, by
            one of the Alexandrian librarians for poetic works. So it
            undoubtedly starts there, and thus the adoption of the format for the
            poetic works in Christian texts...note that Vaticanus if memory
            serves (didn't check to refresh my memory) has the Song of Moses in
            Exodus in this format while the surrounding text isn't. But after
            Jerome, there is a decided increase in its use. Does that clarify?

            Larry Swain
          • James Miller
            ... Interesting information, Larry. Yes, it does help. I m not terribly familiar with the Latin MS tradition, but I do, of course, know Lindesfarne and the
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Larry J. Swain wrote:
              >
              > At least in Latin mss, it seems to have become standard for a while,
              > James. Jerome tells us in his preface to Isaiah that he has done the
              > prophets in cola et commata which he says he is imitating from
              > Demosthenes and Tully. He states something similar for Ezekiel.
              > From what can be gathered from Jerome's comments here and elsewhere
              > that he did the prophets and the poetical books per cola et commata
              > and then did the whole Bible that way, something taken up eagerly and
              > quickly in Latin speaking monasteries for ease of liturgical use.
              ><snip>
              >
              > So the original statement I think a sound one. We don't find it much
              > before the fourth century, except in poetry and sometimes in drama,
              > although it was invented, according to Dionysius of Halicanarssus, by
              > one of the Alexandrian librarians for poetic works. So it
              > undoubtedly starts there, and thus the adoption of the format for the
              > poetic works in Christian texts...note that Vaticanus if memory
              > serves (didn't check to refresh my memory) has the Song of Moses in
              > Exodus in this format while the surrounding text isn't. But after
              > Jerome, there is a decided increase in its use. Does that clarify?
              >
              Interesting information, Larry. Yes, it does help. I'm not terribly
              familiar with the Latin MS tradition, but I do, of course, know
              Lindesfarne and the manner in which it is written out, which seems to
              bear out your assertion. I can't think of many LXX prose segments written
              out like this, though - except, perhaps, the occasional poetic interlude
              sometimes found in those books. Unfortunately, if by "the Song of Moses"
              you mean Ex 15:1-20, you are wrong about it being written
              colometrically/cola et commata in Vaticanus. None of the traditional Odes
              are so written in Vaticanus - with the sole exception of the Song of the 3
              Youths in the book of Daniel. Alexandrinus does, on the other hand, use
              the colometric form (cola et commata?) for alot of the poetic material
              that occurs within prose segments.

              James
            • Larry J. Swain
              ... Swete s Intro to ... why I hadn t ... to be a ... Swete s ... Bob, glad to see this goodie quoted. It seems to me that many of the giants of a century ago
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@c...> wrote:
                > Very interesting discussion. It has sent me back to dear old
                Swete's Intro to
                > the OT in Greek (which is also online somewhere), 344ff. I can see
                why I hadn't
                > paid much attention to "colometry," but should have, since it seems
                to be a
                > special subset of "stichometry," in a way. Here is the gist of
                Swete's
                > treatment:

                Bob, glad to see this goodie quoted. It seems to me that many of the
                giants of a century ago tended to conflate the two, but they are
                different--and at least from an historical perspective, "stichoi"
                drop out of use in the Latin west while cola et commata remain
                (although sometimes there are examples of "verses" being counted, but
                since there was no universal definition of a verse, and they
                certainly didn't know what a stichos was, that doesn't help us much,
                though it helped them navigate the book(s)). And I wouldn't call it
                a subset of stichometry, Swete's structure I think has it best. Under
                the category of "shorter divisions" we have 2 subcategories: stichoi
                and cola et commata (a and b respectively), and the methods seem to
                be different as well. Stichoi are based in the number of syllables,
                and letters in those syllables, rendering app. 36 to the line. A
                cola is based more on sense and clause, you won't find a broken
                prepostional clause for example in cola et commata but may find it in
                a stichometric mss.


                >>
                > This is not very clear to me, and somewhat different from what I've
                observed in
                > the early fragments, in which the "sense units" do not correspond
                to lines, but
                > may begin in the middle of a line and extend to the next or beyond.

                As I mentioned to James, the system seems to have been invented by
                the Alexandrian librarians in the third century BCE and been
                exported, but the earliest example I know of still extant is from the
                second century, according to Metzger. And in biblical manuscripts
                the poetical books of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest known
                examples. So I'm not surprised that you haven't found in the papyri
                you work with.

                I also find
                > at least one example of multi-line units, set off by the use of
                spacing and of
                > enlarged letters. And, indeed, one example of complete word
                division, in a first
                > century (or turn of the era) Greek biblical MS from Nahal Hever.

                Really? Are there images of this available? I'd be interested in
                seeing that.



                >If I'm reading
                > Swete correctly, for him a kwla is its own line -- thus the need
                for wider
                > columns in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

                Right, it takes more space, especially if you have a long line and
                may need to indent on the following line to keep the sense together.



                I've always considered that a stichos, but
                > perhaps a special type, a "sense stichos" rather than an
                arbitrary/conventional
                > one (to use Swete's terms). Apparently we need to refine the
                terminology
                > further?

                Probably more a case of a) defining our terminology in a way not so
                wholly dependent on the ancients' terminology; they weren't always
                terribly consistent in their use of the terms (for example when
                Eusebius refers to the HExapla as composed in "kola", does he
                mean "kola" in terms of sense-unit like we are trying to use it here,
                or does it mean in columns with the result that the sentences are
                short...or a relationship between these two and how it affected page
                layout in Origen's work? not clear from the context). B) probably
                different periods of the discipline of palaeography, codicology, and
                papyrology need to talk to each other more

                Regards,

                Larry
              • Larry J. Swain
                ... written ... I can, but they are all post-seventh century, which of course was part of my original point....it doesn t seem to have been a common Christian
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 11, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, James Miller <jamtat@m...> wrote:

                  > Interesting information, Larry. Yes, it does help. I'm not terribly
                  > familiar with the Latin MS tradition, but I do, of course, know
                  > Lindesfarne and the manner in which it is written out, which seems to
                  > bear out your assertion. I can't think of many LXX prose segments
                  written
                  > out like this, though - except, perhaps, the occasional poetic interlude
                  > sometimes found in those books.


                  I can, but they are all post-seventh century, which of course was part
                  of my original point....it doesn't seem to have been a common
                  Christian practice before late fourth century, and even then, largely
                  in poetical books until Jerome took it up in the Vulgate.



                  Unfortunately, if by "the Song of Moses"
                  > you mean Ex 15:1-20, you are wrong about it being written
                  > colometrically/cola et commata in Vaticanus. None of the
                  traditional Odes
                  > are so written in Vaticanus - with the sole exception of the Song of
                  the 3
                  > Youths in the book of Daniel. Alexandrinus does, on the other hand, use
                  > the colometric form (cola et commata?) for alot of the poetic material
                  > that occurs within prose segments.

                  Quite correct, sorry for my error. It is Alexandrinus that does this.

                  Larry
                • Robert Kraft
                  ... The definitional problem is, as frequently, acute. If I look primarily at Greek sources, I find stixos (basically line ) used in a wide variety of
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 11, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@c...> wrote:
                    > > Very interesting discussion. It has sent me back to dear old
                    > Swete's Intro to
                    > > the OT in Greek (which is also online somewhere), 344ff. I can see
                    > why I hadn't
                    > > paid much attention to "colometry," but should have, since it seems
                    > to be a
                    > > special subset of "stichometry," in a way. Here is the gist of
                    > Swete's
                    > > treatment:
                    >
                    > Bob, glad to see this goodie quoted. It seems to me that many of the
                    > giants of a century ago tended to conflate the two, but they are
                    > different--and at least from an historical perspective, "stichoi"
                    > drop out of use in the Latin west while cola et commata remain
                    > (although sometimes there are examples of "verses" being counted, but
                    > since there was no universal definition of a verse, and they
                    > certainly didn't know what a stichos was, that doesn't help us much,
                    > though it helped them navigate the book(s)). And I wouldn't call it
                    > a subset of stichometry, Swete's structure I think has it best. Under
                    > the category of "shorter divisions" we have 2 subcategories: stichoi
                    > and cola et commata (a and b respectively), and the methods seem to
                    > be different as well. Stichoi are based in the number of syllables,
                    > and letters in those syllables, rendering app. 36 to the line. A
                    > cola is based more on sense and clause, you won't find a broken
                    > prepostional clause for example in cola et commata but may find it in
                    > a stichometric mss.

                    The definitional problem is, as frequently, acute. If I look primarily at Greek
                    sources, I find stixos (basically "line") used in a wide variety of connections,
                    covering most of what we are discussing. Jerome seems to be mainly responsible
                    for calling attention to a "cola et commata" distinction. Judging from the
                    physical evidence as well as the literary, we might want to attempt to classify
                    and label the following distinctions:

                    poetic lines in particular meters, each of which is a formal unit
                    (when such a line carries over to the next line, the length convention has
                    trumped the line convention)
                    poetic lines that are also sense units (see also the above variation)
                    prose lines that are a particular number of letters
                    prose lines that also represent sense units
                    sense units that are explicitly indicated (by spacing, punctuation, etc.)
                    without regard for line structures (clauses, paragraphs, etc.)
                    word division (indicated by spacing, dots, etc.)
                    unregulated -- see the bilingual codex Bezae in which there appear to be
                    a mixture of features and factors, including faithful adherence to the Greek
                    format in the Latin translation (I haven't studied this closely, but see
                    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/bEZAE.gif

                    My concern in the early LXX/OG materials has been with these last two
                    categories, for which see the following examples:

                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PRyl458b.jpg (sense unit spacing)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QLevA.jpg (similarly)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/PFou848.jpg (similarly)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4QNum.jpg (similarly)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4Q127.jpg (similarly)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/4Q126.jpg (similarly)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsA.jpg (similarly!)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsB.jpg (word division!)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/POxy3522.jpg (sense units)
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/POxy4443x.JPG (sections, spaces)

                    You can also see the early stages of the uses of marginal indicators as well in
                    these early examples. Systematic punctuation follows later, although some of the
                    non literary papyri do use some primitive punctuation.

                    For an example of poetic formatting with rubrication but without punctuation,
                    see this example from Canticles in codex Sinaiticus
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ejtreat/song/sinai.html

                    My discussion of these and other early features and developments is found in
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/jewchrpap.html

                    > > This is not very clear to me, and somewhat different from what I've
                    > observed in
                    > > the early fragments, in which the "sense units" do not correspond
                    > to lines, but
                    > > may begin in the middle of a line and extend to the next or beyond.
                    >
                    > As I mentioned to James, the system seems to have been invented by
                    > the Alexandrian librarians in the third century BCE and been
                    > exported, but the earliest example I know of still extant is from the
                    > second century, according to Metzger. And in biblical manuscripts
                    > the poetical books of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest known
                    > examples. So I'm not surprised that you haven't found in the papyri
                    > you work with.

                    There are early papyri of Homer that represent poetic line units. How much we
                    can really credit to the Alexandrian textcritics is not clear to me, given the
                    aforementioned early varieties of format/approach. I suspect that they are
                    standing in a stream, not originating one (or perhaps developing another
                    branch). The Greek Christian scribes/copyists seem to have gradually picked up
                    "classical" Greek literary approaches (e.g. continuous writing without any
                    breaks) that come to dominate in the 4th-5th century materials, although this
                    remains to be investigated more thoroughly. The old simple answers don't work
                    any more.

                    > I also find
                    > > at least one example of multi-line units, set off by the use of
                    > spacing and of
                    > > enlarged letters. And, indeed, one example of complete word
                    > division, in a first
                    > > century (or turn of the era) Greek biblical MS from Nahal Hever.
                    >
                    > Really? Are there images of this available? I'd be interested in
                    > seeing that.

                    see above

                    > >If I'm reading
                    > > Swete correctly, for him a kwla is its own line -- thus the need
                    > for wider
                    > > columns in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
                    >
                    > Right, it takes more space, especially if you have a long line and
                    > may need to indent on the following line to keep the sense together.
                    >
                    > > I've always considered that a stichos, but
                    > > perhaps a special type, a "sense stichos" rather than an
                    > arbitrary/conventional
                    > > one (to use Swete's terms). Apparently we need to refine the
                    > terminology
                    > > further?
                    >
                    > Probably more a case of a) defining our terminology in a way not so
                    > wholly dependent on the ancients' terminology; they weren't always
                    > terribly consistent in their use of the terms (for example when
                    > Eusebius refers to the HExapla as composed in "kola", does he
                    > mean "kola" in terms of sense-unit like we are trying to use it here,
                    > or does it mean in columns with the result that the sentences are
                    > short...or a relationship between these two and how it affected page
                    > layout in Origen's work? not clear from the context). B) probably
                    > different periods of the discipline of palaeography, codicology, and
                    > papyrology need to talk to each other more

                    Agreed! With regard to Eusebius/Origen and the Hexaplaric materials, given the
                    fact that most Hebrew manuscripts of which we are aware used word division well
                    before the time of Origen, as well as other types of division (see Tov's
                    studies, for example), I suspect that this may have created real problems for
                    any Christian translator or editor who was also attempting to reflect literary
                    Greek conventions. Poor Origen is caught right in the middle. And probably that
                    is a significant factor for Jerome as well -- two of our earliest "Christian
                    Hebraists."

                    Very interesting stuff, to us pedagogical pedants!

                    Bob

                    --
                    Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
                    227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
                    kraft@...
                    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
                  • Larry J. Swain
                    ... primarily at Greek ... connections, ... responsible ... from the ... to classify ... I don t really have a problem with the precision of your outline here.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Sep 21, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@c...> wrote:
                      Forgive the tardiness of this and other replies:

                      > > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kraft <kraft@c...> wrote:


                      > The definitional problem is, as frequently, acute. If I look
                      primarily at Greek
                      > sources, I find stixos (basically "line") used in a wide variety of
                      connections,
                      > covering most of what we are discussing. Jerome seems to be mainly
                      responsible
                      > for calling attention to a "cola et commata" distinction. Judging
                      from the
                      > physical evidence as well as the literary, we might want to attempt
                      to classify
                      > and label the following distinctions:

                      I don't really have a problem with the precision of your outline here.
                      Just a couple of points:

                      Jerome is not the first to draw attention to this distinction. As I
                      stated in previous emails on the subject, Dionysius of Halicanarssus,
                      1st century BCE, states that the use of cola was invented at the
                      library in Alexandria, Eusebius says Origen used it for the HExapla,
                      and Jerome says he found saw it in prose works of Demosthenes, prose,
                      and Cicero, also prose. All these, and I'm sure we could find other
                      examples, predate Jerome's use of it, though I would agree, as I
                      stated in my post, that Jerome popularized it especially for the
                      Latin West. So, Jerome was instrumental in its popularization.

                      >
                      > poetic lines in particular meters, each of which is a formal unit
                      > (when such a line carries over to the next line, the length
                      convention has
                      > trumped the line convention)
                      > poetic lines that are also sense units (see also the above
                      variation)
                      > prose lines that are a particular number of letters
                      > prose lines that also represent sense units
                      > sense units that are explicitly indicated (by spacing, punctuation,
                      etc.)
                      > without regard for line structures (clauses, paragraphs, etc.)
                      > word division (indicated by spacing, dots, etc.)
                      > unregulated -- see the bilingual codex Bezae in which there appear
                      to be
                      > a mixture of features and factors, including faithful adherence
                      to the Greek
                      > format in the Latin translation (I haven't studied this closely,
                      but see
                      > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/bEZAE.gif

                      Including per cola et commata......as pointed out.


                      Bob continues:
                      > There are early papyri of Homer that represent poetic line units.
                      How much we
                      > can really credit to the Alexandrian textcritics is not clear to
                      me, given the
                      > aforementioned early varieties of format/approach.

                      I'm not certain how a variety of approaches means that the
                      Alexandrians didn't devise or adapt this one and spread it further in
                      the Hellenistic world. It simply means that there wasn't a single,
                      unified approach, nothing more.

                      As for how much credit or not depends. The one ancient author who
                      mentions it, or at least the only one I know of, places its
                      development there, and it is consistent with the text critical
                      practices of the place. No, one shouldn't be dogmatic about it,
                      there is little enough in any of these fields to be dogmatic about,
                      but it is as likely if not more likely than anywhere or anything else.


                      Bob continues:
                      >I suspect that they are
                      > standing in a stream, not originating one (or perhaps developing
                      another
                      > branch).

                      Sure, I don't disagree with that. They may be developing something
                      already being done in Egyptian documents or in Persia, or since the
                      cola already existed, simply adapting that measure to line length in
                      copying certain types of poetry, which is what it originally referred
                      to, and then the bright idea that it would make reading certain types
                      of prose much easier.....etc...



                      > Agreed! With regard to Eusebius/Origen and the Hexaplaric
                      materials, given the
                      > fact that most Hebrew manuscripts of which we are aware used word
                      division well
                      > before the time of Origen, as well as other types of division (see
                      Tov's
                      > studies, for example), I suspect that this may have created real
                      problems for
                      > any Christian translator or editor who was also attempting to
                      reflect literary
                      > Greek conventions. Poor Origen is caught right in the middle. And
                      probably that
                      > is a significant factor for Jerome as well -- two of our
                      earliest "Christian
                      > Hebraists."
                      >

                      I wonder how much the practice of the Hebrew scribes influenced the
                      Christian scribes, if at all post Origen?

                      Larry Swain
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.