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

Mt 11:9 IDEIN PROFHTHN / PROFHTHN IDEIN

Expand Messages
  • Bai Jiansheng
    I am confused with the reading of Cod. Vatic. here. NA27 says B* and B2 support the _txt_ (IDEIN PROFHTHN), while B1 supports the inversion (PROFHTHN IDEIN).
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I am confused with the reading of Cod. Vatic. here. NA27 says B* and B2 support the _txt_
      (IDEIN PROFHTHN), while B1 supports the inversion (PROFHTHN IDEIN).

      H. von Soden < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/vonSodenSNTv2/hi-res/
      d0034.jpg >, says B ("d1") supports IDEIN PROFHTHN without comment on correctors?

      But Tischendorf's 8th ed., < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/
      TischendorfNTG8v1/hi-res/a55.jpg >, lists B in support of PROFHTHN IDEIN without
      comment on correctors.

      Tischendorf's Cod. Vatic. transcription on PROFHTHN IDEIN in the _txt_ says, "litterae PROF
      rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF daturus erat." From
      this I conceive that Tisch. only believes that B's original scribe started to write IDEIN first
      but corrected himself and wrote PROFHTHN first instead.

      Is it really possible to be certain that PROFHTHN was indeed actually underneath the IDEIN
      that was erased and had PROFHTHN written on top of it? I think that is what NA27 editors
      are saying, unless I am mistaken? I really enjoy a picture of this to look at.

      ??? (Bai Jian Sheng)
    • Wieland Willker
      The listing of B in NA is problematic. NA lists B-c1 for PROFHTHN IDEIN and B* for IDEINPROFHTHN. I have once checked this at the facsimile. p. 1248: There are
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        The listing of B in NA is problematic. NA lists B-c1 for PROFHTHN IDEIN
        and B* for IDEINPROFHTHN. I have once checked this at the facsimile. p.
        1248: There are two dots above the P of PROFHTHN, which may indicate
        that the scribe wanted to write first a Iota (of IDEIN), but then noted
        his error and changed it into P. Nothing else can be seen except the two
        dots. It is not clear wether he wrote anything more than the Iota. At
        the right margin there is a small check.
        The error in B indicates that scribes expected IDEIN after EXHLQATE,
        possibly as a harmonization to Lk. There would have been no reason to
        change the txt reading (B*) into the WH reading (B-c1).


        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      • T. A. Brown
        Hi Bai, I have posted an image of the passage in question online -- http://www.musar.com/Vaticanus_Mt_xi9.html -- scanned from the 1999 Codex Vaticanus
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 19, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Bai,

          I have posted an image of the passage in question online --
          http://www.musar.com/Vaticanus_Mt_xi9.html -- scanned from the 1999
          Codex Vaticanus facsimile.

          T. A. Brown
          Franconia, New Hampshire USA



          Bai Jiansheng wrote:

          >I am confused with the reading of Cod. Vatic. here. NA27 says B* and B2 support the _txt_
          >(IDEIN PROFHTHN), while B1 supports the inversion (PROFHTHN IDEIN).
          >
          >H. von Soden < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/vonSodenSNTv2/hi-res/
          >d0034.jpg >, says B ("d1") supports IDEIN PROFHTHN without comment on correctors?
          >
          >But Tischendorf's 8th ed., < http://rosetta.reltech.org/Ebind/docs/TC/
          >TischendorfNTG8v1/hi-res/a55.jpg >, lists B in support of PROFHTHN IDEIN without
          >comment on correctors.
          >
          >Tischendorf's Cod. Vatic. transcription on PROFHTHN IDEIN in the _txt_ says, "litterae PROF
          >rescriptae et sub P latet I. Hinc sine dubio scriptor IDEIN ante PROF daturus erat." From
          >this I conceive that Tisch. only believes that B's original scribe started to write IDEIN first
          >but corrected himself and wrote PROFHTHN first instead.
          >
          >Is it really possible to be certain that PROFHTHN was indeed actually underneath the IDEIN
          >that was erased and had PROFHTHN written on top of it? I think that is what NA27 editors
          >are saying, unless I am mistaken? I really enjoy a picture of this to look at.
          >
          >??? (Bai Jian Sheng)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Bai Jiansheng
          Thank you to T. A. Brown who posted the image! I am not a palaeographer. Can someone tell if the letters of B s text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are the same hand as the
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 20, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you to T. A. Brown who posted the image! I am not a palaeographer. Can someone
            tell if the letters of B's text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are the same hand as the rest of the letters
            on the page and the MS? To me it looks like the same. I can definitely see the dots above P
            where I used to be, and some discoloring from P to F where IDEIN might have been, but no
            discoloration afterwards where an original or first PROFHTEIN after IDEIN would have been.
            Does anyone agree?

            I can see how B* (meaning the intention of the original scribe) might be cited as saying
            IDEINPROFHTHN, but how to know the same original scribe did not correct his own
            mistake. Is the handwriting different enough?

            And what about B2 in NA, for IDEINPROFHTHN? Can anyone see any marks that would
            indicate B2 support this reading? He could have written the change intra raso, or erased
            and rewritten in the right order, could he not?

            ??? (Bai Jian Sheng)
          • Wieland Willker
            ... It very probably is. And note that B1 is a designation for both the original scribe or a scribe roughly contemporary to him. ... I don t understand this,
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 20, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > Can someone tell if the letters of B's text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are the
              > same hand as the rest of the letters on the page and the MS?

              It very probably is. And note that "B1" is a designation for both the
              original scribe or a scribe roughly contemporary to him.


              > And what about B2 in NA, for IDEINPROFHTHN? Can anyone see
              > any marks that would indicate B2 support this reading?

              I don't understand this, too. As I noted there is a small check at the
              right margin, but I don't know its meaning. Possibly B2 is an error in
              NA and should actually be with B1, indicating that also B2 (the
              enhancer) supported the PROFHTHN IDEIN reading. Hmm ...

              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              ------------------------------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.