I was looking at the facsimile copy of Vaticanus yesterday. Rahlfs
LXX indicates that in Deuteronomy 6:5, B-r (Vaticanus rescriptor) has
DIANOIAS instead of KARDIAS (as in Alexandrinus). Rahlfs defined a
rescriptor as "one who, in his correction, has so completely set
aside the original text that it is no longer recognisable." Rahlfs
distinguishes between a rescriptor and a corrector (one who has
replaced the original and still recognisable text by another text).
Looking at the facsimile of B, I couldn't see any indication that
DIANOIAS was the work of a rescriptor and not the original hand. It's
on p. 201, column 1, line 13. Two nearby corrections are noticeable
(EN TH ERHMW added in tiny letters to the side of line 7; AUTA added
in tiny letters above line 21). But I couldn't see anything to
indicate why DIANOIAS would be considered the work of a rescriptor.
Maybe there is something ever so slightly different in the actual
manuscript itself that isn't apparent in the facsimile.
Does anyone have any insight into why DIANOIAS would be considered
the work of a rescriptor?
Thanks in advance,
Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Professor of Christian Studies
California Baptist University