Re: Mt 11:9 IDEIN PROFHTHN / PROFHTHN IDEIN
- 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).
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
- 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
- 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)
> Can someone tell if the letters of B's text, PROFHTHNIDEIN, are theIt very probably is. And note that "B1" is a designation for both the
> same hand as the rest of the letters on the page and the MS?
original scribe or a scribe roughly contemporary to him.
> And what about B2 in NA, for IDEINPROFHTHN? Can anyone seeI don't understand this, too. As I noted there is a small check at the
> any marks that would indicate B2 support this reading?
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 ...
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany