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

Reflections on Payne's "The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in c.Vaticanus"

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    1) The definition of a correction needs to be nailed down. NA27 doesn t list as corrections places where the overwriter left some letters unreinforced for
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 9, 2008
      1) The definition of a 'correction' needs to be nailed down. NA27
      doesn't list as corrections places where the overwriter left some
      letters unreinforced for textual reasons (several examples are
      given). Closely related questions have been raised by Willker
      regarding Delta's scribe going back over the ms with a different
      colour of ink. Any changes evidently made to the ms after the first
      pass, IMO, should be considered corrections. How closely this is
      followed varies from Tischendorf to NA27 to Swanson.

      2) Only 9 of the 11 unreinforced umlauts in B can be identified with
      a specific textual variant. That appears to mean that upwards of 18%
      of all significant variants known to B's scribe are now extinct.
      There are implications to that that I won't go into in a post
      called 'Reflections.' Nine of the eleven umlauts are located where
      they would be likely overlooked by the reinforcer, but Payne doesn't
      say if these are the same nine. If they are, it would seem to
      indicate that the reinforcer played textual critic with the textual
      notes, not just the text*. That would bear looking into, IMO.

      3) The scribe of B obviously had access to a well-stocked textual
      library. This pretty much falsifies my earlier stated hypothesis that
      B was compiled from fragmentary papyri. I'm still holding on to the
      hypothesis, however, that the umlauts all refer to variants between B
      and Syriac mss, but I'm not sure how this could be disproven.

      4) Payne never comes out and identifies the 'umlauts' in B as unique,
      although he does seem to be saying that no other ms uses only this
      sigla to mark doubtful passages. Others use a "dots with other pen
      strokes" in the margin and/or in the text. There are interesting
      implications to this. Hand-edition CA's seem to be extremely
      selective in their recording of these marks of doubt. IMO, if such
      sigla are worth mentioning at all, they should be mentioned
      uniformly, for omissions (where we see several umlauts) as well as

      5) Payne briefly mentions bar-umlauts, which, he writes elsewhere,
      have not yet been fully studied. They mostly (25/35) seem to mark
      omissions in B, such as the PA in John 7-8. Could it be that scholars
      are reluctant to pursue this implication to its natural conclusion?

      6) Every serious textual critic knows about the long blank space
      after Mark 16:8, but I hadn't been aware of many other blank spaces
      that mark omissions in B.

      6) I commend Payne for taking the risk of mentioning the sigla (3
      dots) marking the omission of the Johannine Comma. If Vaticanus'
      scribe had access to ms containing it, his library was expansive
      indeed, which would seem to indicate that no mss with what Hort
      called "uniquely Byzantine readings" had yet reached his library,
      other than those reflected in the umlauts.

      *Payne wrote elsewhere, "It is possible that the original Vaticanus
      scribe put in these umlauts based on variant readings he saw in a
      manuscript of 1 Cor but that the later scribe who reinforced the ink
      line by line, having no knowledge of variants in these lines, chose
      not to reinforce them. The paucity of textual variants in lines with
      faded umlauts in 1 Cor contrasts sharply with the uniform presence of
      NA26 variants with faded bar umlauts whether reversed or not. This
      added to their distinctive written form, higher ratio of NA26
      variants, and the low correlation of the bar umlauts with NA26 and
      UBS3 paragraph breaks, indicate that the bar umlaut is a separate
      siglum from the umlaut."

      Well, this is getting longer than I expected, so that's all for now.

      Daniel Buck
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.