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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mt 11:9 IDEIN PROFHTHN / PROFHTHN IDEIN

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.