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

Minuscule 88

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    Minuscule 88 is an intriguing witness and merits closer study. In the Journal of Biblical Literature, in 1959 (Vol. 78, No. 3), there is an article by Harold
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 25, 2011
      Minuscule 88 is an intriguing witness and merits closer study.

      In the Journal of Biblical Literature, in 1959 (Vol. 78, No. 3), there is an article by Harold S. Murphy, "On the Text of Codices H and 93." Murphy identifies 93 as Naples II A 7, which means that the MS that he calls 93 is what is known in the Gregory-Aland numbering-system as 88.

      88 has a colophon similar to a colophon found in Codex H, stating that it was collated with (or checked against) the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus which was written in his own hand.

      Murphy provides a list of 165 variants in 88 which disagree with H, and draws the conclusion that 88's text cannot have been conformed to the same standard on which H's text is based, since the two texts are so different. He went on to conclude that H is more likely to echo the text of Pamphilus than 88, because H tends to agree with Aleph and B, and 88 tends to side with the TR. (Figuring that the article was written in 1959, I suspect that Murphy would have said "with the Byzantine Text" today.) But this conclusion was drawn on the basis of a comparison of just 90 of those 165 variants (apparently this limitation was made because 90 of the variants could be conveniently consulted in Tischendorf's apparatus).

      Murphy provides a picture of a page of 88, titled "Codex 93 (Biblioteca Nazionale, Naples II A 7): Galatians 2:12-3:16." I sifted through the first column (from Galatians 2:12b-3:2a) and found that 88 has some things that look like non-Byzantine readings. (Bear in mind that the picture in JBL was all I had to work with, and its focus-quality is not all that great.)

      2:14 - 88 has KHFAS. (It looks sort of like KEFW but has to be KEFAS. Right?.) Note: B has an umlaut here.

      2:18 - 88 looks like it has SUNISTANW instead of SUNISTHMI. Someone else should check this.

      3:1 - 88 does not have EN 'UMIN before ESTAURWMENOS.

      Also, while I did not sift through the other column, I noticed that in 3:14, 88 looks like it supports EULOGIAN! Again, someone else should check this.

      Also, a feature of 88 was the focus of an article by Oscar von Dobschutz in 1898, "A Hitherto Unpublished Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (Probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia)" in the 1898 "American Journal of Theology"; happily this article is available online (I was using Chrome when I found it). Von Dobschutz clearly identifies the MS, quoting Gregory's profile (where 83 = P93 = Ap99 = Neapoli bibl. nationalis II. Aa. 7). The Greek text of 88's extra Prologue to Acts, with notes, as well as an English translation, is included in the article.

      The prologue's author writes to a bishop named Eusebius, and, if Oscar von Dobschutz's rendering is accurate, the author states that the bishop prior to Eusebius was also named Eusebius; the deceased Eusebius had requested the author to compose and send to him a commentary on Luke; the author states that having done so, he now submits to the request of the second Eusebius for a commentary on the book of Acts of the Apostles.

      Dobschutz tackles the obvious detective-work: when and where were there two consecutive bishops named Eusebius? But after listing 46 bishops named Eusebius, he comes to a dead end, it seems, and he moves on, and attempts to identify the author of the Prologue by narrowing down the possibilities from a list of authors of commentaries on the book of Acts. Theodore of Mopsuestia is recorded as having dedicated a commentary on Luke to an individual named Eusebius -- and with a little nudging, the evidence can be made to fit the case for Theodore of Mopsuestia as the Prologue's author.

      But what if the two Eusebii mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Prologue were indeed bishops, but not bishops of the same place? Then the possibility emerges that we are looking at the 300's as the composition-date of the Prologue, when there were plenty of Bishop Eusebii: Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Emesa, Eusebius of Gadara, Eusebius of Samosata, Eusebius of Dorla. The list in Dobschutz's article allows other periods, too. This should be looked into more. (Willard's recent study of the Euthalian Apparatus included some analysis of all this, but, alas, I have not been able to access it all.)

      Anyway, if the Prologue in 88 might echo the mid-300's, then its text might, too. (So it doesn't agree with H. Perhaps Pamphilus availed himself of different exemplars when producing copies at different times.) It may deserve much more attention than it has been given so far.

      A couple final notes about 88: alongside the beginning of Galatians 2:16, there is an underlined umlaut superscripted, immediately before the beginning of 2:16. In the outer margin, the same symbol appears again, along with a note that this is the beginning of chapter 19 -- ARX K. IQ. A Telos-mark appears, in the text (with plenty of space for it, an in-production feature), between the end of 2:20 and the beginning of 2:21. There are three underlined umlauts along the left margin of the second column, too -- the first one corresponds to an ARCH symbol embedded in the text, and the third one corresponds to a TELOS symbol in the opposite margin. The second one, I'm not sure about, but it is probably the same sort of thing, related, perhaps, to the note at the bottom of the page (which is also accompanied by an underlined umlaut).

      And, 88 is one of the MSS in which I Cor. 14:34-35 is not in its usual place; Payne wrote about this in some detail in an article which is accessible online. And, 88 has the CJ written in the margin. (And, again, B has an umlaut there, or something like an umlaut.) How distant can 88 be, I wonder, from the source of the umlauts in B. What if the umlauts represent readings that someone gleaned from more than one MS that he thought represented MSS produced by Pamphilus -- MSS that included a MS with a Gospels-text sort of like 1, and a MS with a Pauline text sort of like 88? (Has Ed Gravely looked into this?)

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • George F Somsel
      James Snapp wrote:  2:14 - 88 has KHFAS. (It looks sort of like KEFW but has to be KEFAS. Right?.) Note: B has an umlaut here.   It might indeed be
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 26, 2011
        James Snapp wrote:  "2:14 - 88 has KHFAS. (It looks sort of like KEFW but has to be KEFAS. Right?.) Note: B has an umlaut here."
         
        It might indeed be KEFW (ΚΗΦΩ) — This is an uncial, no?  Unfortunately my JBL copies don't go back that far so I can't check the article.  Since the reading there would then be ΤΩ ΚΗΦΩ, it could simply be an error in forming the case of ΚΗΦΑ.  While it may sound strange, mistakes such as that do get made.   In any case, I would probably NOT be ΚΗΦΑΣ.    
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        … search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________
        From: james_snapp_jr <voxverax@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 9:16 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Minuscule 88

         
        Minuscule 88 is an intriguing witness and merits closer study.

        In the Journal of Biblical Literature, in 1959 (Vol. 78, No. 3), there is an article by Harold S. Murphy, "On the Text of Codices H and 93." Murphy identifies 93 as Naples II A 7, which means that the MS that he calls 93 is what is known in the Gregory-Aland numbering-system as 88.

        88 has a colophon similar to a colophon found in Codex H, stating that it was collated with (or checked against) the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus which was written in his own hand.

        Murphy provides a list of 165 variants in 88 which disagree with H, and draws the conclusion that 88's text cannot have been conformed to the same standard on which H's text is based, since the two texts are so different. He went on to conclude that H is more likely to echo the text of Pamphilus than 88, because H tends to agree with Aleph and B, and 88 tends to side with the TR. (Figuring that the article was written in 1959, I suspect that Murphy would have said "with the Byzantine Text" today.) But this conclusion was drawn on the basis of a comparison of just 90 of those 165 variants (apparently this limitation was made because 90 of the variants could be conveniently consulted in Tischendorf's apparatus).

        Murphy provides a picture of a page of 88, titled "Codex 93 (Biblioteca Nazionale, Naples II A 7): Galatians 2:12-3:16." I sifted through the first column (from Galatians 2:12b-3:2a) and found that 88 has some things that look like non-Byzantine readings. (Bear in mind that the picture in JBL was all I had to work with, and its focus-quality is not all that great.)

        2:14 - 88 has KHFAS. (It looks sort of like KEFW but has to be KEFAS. Right?.) Note: B has an umlaut here.

        2:18 - 88 looks like it has SUNISTANW instead of SUNISTHMI. Someone else should check this.

        3:1 - 88 does not have EN 'UMIN before ESTAURWMENOS.

        Also, while I did not sift through the other column, I noticed that in 3:14, 88 looks like it supports EULOGIAN! Again, someone else should check this.

        Also, a feature of 88 was the focus of an article by Oscar von Dobschutz in 1898, "A Hitherto Unpublished Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (Probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia)" in the 1898 "American Journal of Theology"; happily this article is available online (I was using Chrome when I found it). Von Dobschutz clearly identifies the MS, quoting Gregory's profile (where 83 = P93 = Ap99 = Neapoli bibl. nationalis II. Aa. 7). The Greek text of 88's extra Prologue to Acts, with notes, as well as an English translation, is included in the article.

        The prologue's author writes to a bishop named Eusebius, and, if Oscar von Dobschutz's rendering is accurate, the author states that the bishop prior to Eusebius was also named Eusebius; the deceased Eusebius had requested the author to compose and send to him a commentary on Luke; the author states that having done so, he now submits to the request of the second Eusebius for a commentary on the book of Acts of the Apostles.

        Dobschutz tackles the obvious detective-work: when and where were there two consecutive bishops named Eusebius? But after listing 46 bishops named Eusebius, he comes to a dead end, it seems, and he moves on, and attempts to identify the author of the Prologue by narrowing down the possibilities from a list of authors of commentaries on the book of Acts. Theodore of Mopsuestia is recorded as having dedicated a commentary on Luke to an individual named Eusebius -- and with a little nudging, the evidence can be made to fit the case for Theodore of Mopsuestia as the Prologue's author.

        But what if the two Eusebii mentioned in the opening paragraph of the Prologue were indeed bishops, but not bishops of the same place? Then the possibility emerges that we are looking at the 300's as the composition-date of the Prologue, when there were plenty of Bishop Eusebii: Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Emesa, Eusebius of Gadara, Eusebius of Samosata, Eusebius of Dorla. The list in Dobschutz's article allows other periods, too. This should be looked into more. (Willard's recent study of the Euthalian Apparatus included some analysis of all this, but, alas, I have not been able to access it all.)

        Anyway, if the Prologue in 88 might echo the mid-300's, then its text might, too. (So it doesn't agree with H. Perhaps Pamphilus availed himself of different exemplars when producing copies at different times.) It may deserve much more attention than it has been given so far.

        A couple final notes about 88: alongside the beginning of Galatians 2:16, there is an underlined umlaut superscripted, immediately before the beginning of 2:16. In the outer margin, the same symbol appears again, along with a note that this is the beginning of chapter 19 -- ARX K. IQ. A Telos-mark appears, in the text (with plenty of space for it, an in-production feature), between the end of 2:20 and the beginning of 2:21. There are three underlined umlauts along the left margin of the second column, too -- the first one corresponds to an ARCH symbol embedded in the text, and the third one corresponds to a TELOS symbol in the opposite margin. The second one, I'm not sure about, but it is probably the same sort of thing, related, perhaps, to the note at the bottom of the page (which is also accompanied by an underlined umlaut).

        And, 88 is one of the MSS in which I Cor. 14:34-35 is not in its usual place; Payne wrote about this in some detail in an article which is accessible online. And, 88 has the CJ written in the margin. (And, again, B has an umlaut there, or something like an umlaut.) How distant can 88 be, I wonder, from the source of the umlauts in B. What if the umlauts represent readings that someone gleaned from more than one MS that he thought represented MSS produced by Pamphilus -- MSS that included a MS with a Gospels-text sort of like 1, and a MS with a Pauline text sort of like 88? (Has Ed Gravely looked into this?)

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.



      • bucksburg
        ...
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 9, 2013
          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" wrote:

          << Minuscule 88 is an intriguing witness and merits closer study.
          In the Journal of Biblical Literature, in 1959 (Vol. 78, No. 3), there is an article by Harold S. Murphy, "On the Text of Codices H and 93." Murphy identifies 93 as Naples II A 7, which means that the MS that he calls 93 is what is known in the Gregory-Aland numbering-system as 88.
          88 has a colophon similar to a colophon found in Codex H, stating that it was collated with (or checked against) the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus which was written in his own hand.<<

          Another intriguing similarity with H is that there are only two Greek NT manuscripts with the coronis dialog as a colophon (it's also found as a preface to GA#773): H and 88.

          http://purplemotes.net/2013/03/03/coronis-colophon-codex-coislinianus/

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