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

Vaticanus corrections in Romans 11:6--one, two, or three?

Expand Messages
  • bucksburg
    Codex Vaticanus has a singular reading in Romans 11:6-- EI DE CARITI OUKETI EX ERGWN, EPEI H CARIS OUKETI GEINETAI CARIS. EI DE EX ERGWN OUKETI CARIS EPI TO
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Codex Vaticanus has a singular reading in Romans 11:6--

      EI DE CARITI OUKETI EX ERGWN, EPEI H CARIS OUKETI GEINETAI CARIS. EI DE EX ERGWN OUKETI CARIS EPI TO ERGON OUKETI ESTIN CARIS.


      At least, this is how we are given to understand the uncorrected text read, according the the information at
      http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de

      There's at least one error, however. The "Word Collation with Original Spelling" page shows EI misspelled as EI in the correction to Sinaiticus. We can leave that aside, however, and concentrate on the two spelling changes shown for Vaticanus (only the one in the "text" reading is overtly mentioned): GEINETAI to GINETAI in the text, and EPI to EPEI in the plus. The "Compare" page shows these two corrections, as well as the claim that the penultimate word, ESTIN, has been corrected from EPI to EPEI. This appears to be dittography, as the same note then appears twice, but EPEI is, by all other accounts (if we can trust them), spelled correctly in the "text" section.

      If you look at the facsimile at
      http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_113a.jpg

      you can see the tiny E inserted above the line to have the second EPEI read the same as the first.

      But what about the third correction postulated by Muenster--GEINETAI to GINETAI? The CSNTM pseudofacsimile only shows the original reading.

      Comparing the two resources shows a pooled set of only one correction: EPI to EPEI. Another can be dismissed as electrodittography. But what about the third?

      The EPEI/EPI spelling, by the way, offers a transitional form within the Alexandrian text-type between that of p46 (EPEI) and 01/02 (EPI). GEINETAI, however, is the standard Alex reading; not even Sinaiticus was corrected.

      Daniel Buck
    • Wieland Willker
      1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI. 2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This is typical and
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 15, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI.

        2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This
        is typical and understood as a correction.

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        --------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

        Please check out the TC forum:
        http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
      • Daniel Buck
        Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I d forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn t show up on the facsimile unless it were
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 15, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I'd forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn't show up on the facsimile unless it were full-color.

          If I understand this right, the two corrections are of different kinds (at least the changes go in different directions). GEINETAI was replaced by a later form without the first E, whilst EPI was just a common itacism for EPEI. As for the EPEI correction, does it look like it was corrected prior to the enhancement?

          Daniel Buck


          From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 3:21:30 AM
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Vaticanus corrections in Romans 11:6--one, two, or three?

           

          1. There is an E above the EPI. This is a correction to EPEI.

          2. Prima manu wrote GEINETAI. The enhancer (B2) did not enhance the E. This
          is typical and understood as a correction.

          Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><


        • Wieland Willker
          ... corrected ... That is very difficult to say. Tischendorf assigns the EPEI correction also to the enhancer. This is possible. It is also possible that the
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 15, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            > As for the EPEI correction, does it look like it was
            corrected
            > prior to the enhancement?

            That is very difficult to say.
            Tischendorf assigns the EPEI correction also to the
            enhancer. This is possible. It is also possible that the
            small E was already there by B1 and the enhancer enhanced
            it, too.

            The error is a little strange because three lines above the
            scribe/copyist wrote EPEI correctly and B normally is a fan
            of EI for I. In Rom 3:6 and 11:22 he also writes EPEI
            correctly.


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

            Please check out the TC forum:
            http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
          • Robert Relyea
            ... Even more so in a psuedo-facsimile, which is really nothing more than a transcription, typeset to mimic the layout of the original.;). bob
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 15, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 03/15/2011 10:22 AM, Daniel Buck wrote:
              Yes, of course, thank you Wieland. I'd forgotten about that unique feature of Vaticanus. Naturally it wouldn't show up on the facsimile unless it were full-color.
              Even more so in a psuedo-facsimile, which is really nothing more than a transcription, typeset to mimic the layout of the original.;).

              bob

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