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

[textualcriticism] Vaticanus - "the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe"

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi Folks, Here is a quote about Codex Vaticanus, from an interview, that I would like our experts to examine: Scot McKendrick, British Library: .. Vaticanus
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks,

      Here is a quote about Codex Vaticanus, from an interview, that I would like our experts to examine:

      Scot McKendrick, British Library:
      ".. Vaticanus does not have the extent of correction ... Vaticanus has a very strange appearance. When you look at it as a manuscript expert
      ... actually it looks like a fifteenth century manuscript.  There is one very simple reason for that. Almost the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe..."

      Dr Scot McKendrick
      http://www.bl.uk/researchregister/1.10/?app_cd=RR&page_cd=RESEARCHER&l_researcher_id=112

      Scot McKendrick is editor, with Orlaith O'Sullivan of  The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, 2003 which has an article by James Neville Birdsall (1928-2005), The Codex Vaticanus, Its History and Signficance p. 33-41  (I have not seen that article, the book is published by the British Library and is available inexpensively.)  Sidenote: Birdsall earlier contributed to the 1970 article on Vaticanus in the Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1, "The New Testament Text" p. 359-360 that discusses scribal theories on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (he is referenced by T. C. Skeat in a positive sense).

      So Scot McKendrick should be well informed on these questions.

      Question: Is the 15th century overwrite assertion accurate?

      And if so:
      Where is this overwrite discussed? 
      And what is the significance? (historical and textual and for reconstructing the 4th century text)?
      And can we see pictures comparing the overwrite text with areas not overwritten?

      This seemed to me to be a major analysis point, that I would expect to be ... everywhere discussed.

      ============================================================

      This is from a  video "Tares Among the Wheat" (problematic in some aspects, and not really the point here).
      Two men from the British Library are interviewed.

      2:00       Codex Sinaiticus Project
                   2008 interview with Dr. Juan Garces, Curator, British Library, London
      2:02:50  2008 interview with Dr. Scot McKendrick - the Head of Western Manuscripts, British Library, London
                   About the comparison between the Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

      ============================================================

      Some notes:

      From Wieland Willker:

      Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html
      "The book-cover is not extant anymore, but there are descriptions in old Vatican inventories, that is was made of thin boards covered with red leather. This refers probably to the 15th CE binding."
      15th CE: The restoration took place. The missing pages at the beginning, the end and within the Psalms have been replaced by a minuscule hand. Also the codex was probably newly bound.

      While Wieland has a lot of good technical info, and a good bibliography, it really does not match the assertion from Scot McKendrick of an almost full overwrite.

      ============================================================

      Here is the only direct reference from scholarly sources I have found. And this is given in an en passant manner.  Metzger borrowing (or plagiarizing) from Kenyon.

      Frederic George Kenyon (Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, Being a History of the Text and Its Translations, 1895, p. 134) -
      "Unfortunately, the beauty of the original writing has been spoilt by a later corrector, who, thinking perhaps that the original ink was becoming faint, traced over every letter afresh, omitting only those letters and words which he believed to be incorrect. Thus it is only in the case of such words that we see the original writing untouched and uninjured."  
      http://books.google.com/books?id=DI4RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134

      Bruce M. Metzger (The Text of the New Testament, 1964, 1968, 1992; 3rd edition, p. 47) -
      The writing is in small and delicate uncials, perfectly simple and unadorned. Unfortunately, the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector, who traced over every letter afresh, omitting only those letters and words which he believed to be incorrect. The complete absence of ornamentation from Vaticanus has generally been taken as an indication that it is slightly older than codex Sinaiticus. On the other hand, some scholars believe that these two manuscripts were originally among the fifty copies of the Scriptures which the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have written (see pp. 7-8 above). Indeed, T. C. Skeat of the British Museum has suggested to the present writer that codex Vaticanus was a 'reject* among the fifty copies, for it is deficient in the Eusebian canon tables, has many corrections by different scribes, and, as was mentioned above, lacks the books of Maccabees apparently through an oversight. Whether 'reject' or not, however, the text which it contains has been regarded by many scholars as an excellent representative of the Alexandrian text-type of the New Testament.

      ============================================================

      Also the following:

      The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.  http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html

      If you go to the Wikipedia Vaticanus page, this overwriting phenomenon seems to be mentioned en passant as from a much earlier date.

      Codex Vaticanus
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
      The original writing was retraced by a later scribe (usually dated to the 10th or 11th century),
      (1) and the beauty of the original script was spoiled. Accents and breathing marks, as well as punctuation, have been added by a later hand. 
      (1) Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 74.

      However, the Bruce Metzger source only refers to a "later scribe", leaving us in the dark for now as to how Wiki got "10th or 11th century"

      Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
      Bruce Manning Metzger
      http://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA74
      The writing is small and neat, without ornamentation or capitals. Unfortunately the beauty of the original has been spoiled by a later scribe who found the ink faded and traced over every letter afresh, omitting only those letters and words that he believed to be incorrect. A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand....  Accent and breathing marks, as well as punctuation, have been added by a later hand. In the New Testament, quotations from the Old Testament are indicated by marks in the left-hand margin of the column (see the lower part of col. b).

      Note that this says we only have a few passages with the first hand.  Can we see a picture comparison? Overwriting by hand is quite tricky, and we might be able to see lots of shading of the original, under the overwrite, and also areas where the original is not fully covered.

      In addition to Wieland above, you do get a picture of a page here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Vaticanus_B,_2Thess._3,11-18,_Hebr._1,1-2,2.jpg

      And some more pics here
      http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm

      There are some additional questions about the accents and marks of aspiration, however that is a little afield for the question on this post.

      Returning to the question of the overwriting date, the Vaticanus early date is reflected in this web article, author given only as "DocRob" in the url.

      The Three Great Uncial Codices:
      The "Sinaiticus," "Alexandrinus" & "Vaticanus"
      http://s-studies.0catch.com/DocRob/bible/3greatuncs.htm
      Originally the work of two scribes, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts.

      Some writers have questioned the textual value of an overwritten manuscript. David L. Brown is one. At any rate, this seems to give us a source for the 10th or 11th century date, William Eugene "Gene" Scott (1929–2005) .

      The Great Unicals - Dean Burgon Society (2000)
      David L. Brown
      http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm
      How is this manuscript viewed? Though I cannot figure out why, many consider this to be the greatest of Codex witnesses to the New Testament. In fact, this parchment manuscript "was reckoned as the chief authority among MSS. for the Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort." (The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the New Testament by Camden M. Cobern; published by Funk and Wagnalls 1922; p.136). But there are those who have questioned this evaluation and with good reason! In 1860, while a temporary chaplain of an English congregation at Rome, John Burgon made a personal examination of it and found some major problems with in the manuscript. This has been confirmed by many others. Here are just a few of the problems. "The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible." (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus -
      (Wayne Jackson url inactive ). Dr. W. Eugene Scott, who owns a large collection of ancient Bible manuscripts and Bibles says, "the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing [marks] added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts." (Codex Vaticanus by Dr. W. Eugene Scott, 1996).
      I question the "great witness" value of any manuscript has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries. 

      Similarly, Gary LaMore is skeptical about the overwriting:

      While Latinos Slept... A Detailed Study of the Reina- Valera 1960 New Testament In The Light Of The Critical Greek Text of Westcott and Hort (2005) - Gary E. LaMore
      http://books.google.com/books?id=-0e1NG2PpZwC&pg=PA20
      ... if each letter has been "retraced" or overwritten, how can anyone know with certainly what the original letters of this Codex were? It would seem that this "person" who "retraced" the faded writing of Codex Vaticanus ( B ) destroyed whatever credibility this ancient curiosity had ever had.

      ============================================================

      Your thoughts on all the various questions above welcome.  (I am using the 15th century date for some of the questions.)
      Especially:

      1) the date of the overwriting - 11th, 15th, unknown, other?
      2) who is conjectured to do the overwriting and why? was it after RCC provenance?
      3) the textual and historical significance
      4) why is this referenced so sketchily and unevenly in the textual literature?
      5) can we see clear comparison pictures of overwrite compared to pages or parts with the original text?
      6) Did the later scribe try to copy the actual handwriting and letter shapes?

      Then additional technical issues:

       7) Is the 15th century overwrite considered to be 100% the 4th century text?
       8) Can layering and shading be seen to visible study?
       9) Has spectrographic technology been used to confirm any purported 4th-15th century identity.
      10) Does the Vaticanus ownership difficulties prevent any extensive analysis?

      Thanks !

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY
      •  
    • P.M. Head
      Other than the 15th cent date this is all common knowledge. I suggest taking a close look at one page in a colour facsimile or photograph and coming to your
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Other than the 15th cent date this is all common knowledge. I suggest
        taking a close look at one page in a colour facsimile or photograph and
        coming to your own conclusions.
        It has been over written. Tischendorf dated the overwriting to the
        10th-11th century on the basis of some writing in the same ink. That
        seemed relatively plausible to me when I looked at it. Probably Scot
        simply mistook the connection between the filler texts (e.g. end of
        Hebrews and Revelation, definitely 15th cent.) and the overwriting.
        No clear evidence how many scribes were involved in that. Some parts
        seem to be done better than other parts. Surely relevant to the
        determination of what the underlying text says.

        Pete

        On 2013-09-13 15:30, Steven Avery wrote:
        > Hi Folks,
        >
        > Here is a quote about Codex Vaticanus, from an interview, that I
        > would like our experts to examine:
        >
        > Scot McKendrick, British Library:
        > ".. Vaticanus does not have the extent of correction ... Vaticanus
        > has a very strange appearance. When you look at it as a manuscript
        > expert
        > ... actually it looks like a fifteenth century manuscript. There is
        > one very simple reason for that. Almost the entire text has been
        > overwritten by a 15th century scribe..."
        >
        > Dr Scot McKendrick
        >
        > http://www.bl.uk/researchregister/1.10/?app_cd=RR&page_cd=RESEARCHER&l_researcher_id=112
        > [1]
        >
        > Scot McKendrick is editor, with Orlaith O'Sullivan of _The Bible as
        > Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, _2003 which has an article
        > by James Neville Birdsall (1928-2005), The Codex Vaticanus, Its
        > History and Signficance p. 33-41 (I have not seen that article, the
        > book is published by the British Library and is available
        > inexpensively.) Sidenote: Birdsall earlier contributed to the 1970
        > article on Vaticanus in the _Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 1,
        > _"The New Testament Text" p. 359-360 that discusses scribal theories
        > on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (he is referenced by T. C. Skeat in a
        > positive sense).
        >
        > So Scot McKendrick should be well informed on these questions.
        >
        > Question: Is the 15th century overwrite assertion accurate?
        >
        > And if so:
        > Where is this overwrite discussed?
        > And what is the significance? (historical and textual and for
        > reconstructing the 4th century text)?
        > And can we see pictures comparing the overwrite text with areas not
        > overwritten?
        >
        > This seemed to me to be a major analysis point, that I would expect
        > to be ... everywhere discussed.
        >
        > ============================================================
        >
        > This is from a video "Tares Among the Wheat" (problematic in some
        > aspects, and not really the point here).
        > Two men from the British Library are interviewed.
        >
        > 2:00 Codex Sinaiticus Project
        > 2008 interview with Dr. Juan Garces, Curator, British Library, London
        > 2:02:50 2008 interview with Dr. Scot McKendrick - the Head of Western
        > Manuscripts, British Library, London
        > About the comparison between the Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
        >
        > ============================================================
        >
        > Some notes:
        >
        > From Wieland Willker:
        >
        > Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
        > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html
        > "The book-cover is not extant anymore, but there are descriptions in
        > old Vatican inventories, that is was made of thin boards covered with
        > red leather. This refers probably to the 15th CE binding."
        > 15th CE: The restoration took place. The missing pages at the
        > beginning, the end and within the Psalms have been replaced by a
        > minuscule hand. Also the codex was probably newly bound.
        >
        > While Wieland has a lot of good technical info, and a good
        > bibliography, it really does not match the assertion from Scot
        > McKendrick of an almost full overwrite.
        >
        > ============================================================
        >
        > Here is the only direct reference from scholarly sources I have
        > found. And this is given in an _en passant _manner. Metzger borrowing
        > (or plagiarizing) from Kenyon.
        >
        > Frederic George Kenyon (_Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, Being a
        > History of the Text and Its Translations_, 1895, p. 134) -
        > "UNFORTUNATELY, THE BEAUTY OF THE ORIGINAL WRITING HAS BEEN SPOILT BY
        > A LATER CORRECTOR, WHO, THINKING PERHAPS THAT THE ORIGINAL INK WAS
        > BECOMING FAINT, TRACED OVER EVERY LETTER AFRESH, OMITTING ONLY THOSE
        > LETTERS AND WORDS WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE INCORRECT. Thus it is only
        > in the case of such words that we see the original writing untouched
        > and uninjured."
        > http://books.google.com/books?id=DI4RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134
        >
        > Bruce M. Metzger (_The Text of the New Testament,_ 1964, 1968, 1992;
        > 3rd edition, p. 47) -
        > The writing is in small and delicate uncials, perfectly simple and
        > unadorned. UNFORTUNATELY, THE BEAUTY OF THE ORIGINAL WRITING HAS BEEN
        > SPOILED BY A LATER CORRECTOR, WHO TRACED OVER EVERY LETTER AFRESH,
        > OMITTING ONLY THOSE LETTERS AND WORDS WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE
        > INCORRECT. The complete absence of ornamentation from Vaticanus has
        > generally been taken as an indication that it is slightly older than
        > codex Sinaiticus. On the other hand, some scholars believe that these
        > two manuscripts were originally among the fifty copies of the
        > Scriptures which the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have
        > written (see pp. 7-8 above). Indeed, T. C. Skeat of the British Museum
        > has suggested to the present writer that codex Vaticanus was a
        > 'reject* among the fifty copies, for it is deficient in the Eusebian
        > canon tables, has many corrections by different scribes, and, as was
        > mentioned above, lacks the books of Maccabees apparently through an
        > oversight. Whether 'reject' or not, however, the text which it
        > contains has been regarded by many scholars as an excellent
        > representative of the Alexandrian text-type of the New Testament.
        >
        > ============================================================
        >
        > Also the following:
        >
        > The Vaticanus, which is the sole property of the Roman Catholic
        > Church, and the Sinaiticus, are both known to be overwhelmed with
        > errors. Words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or
        > completely omitted, while the entire manuscript has had the text
        > mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a
        > pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
        > http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html [2]
        >
        > If you go to the Wikipedia Vaticanus page, this overwriting
        > phenomenon seems to be mentioned _en passant_ as from a much earlier
        > date.
        >
        > Codex Vaticanus
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus [3]
        > The original writing was retraced by a later scribe (usually dated to
        > the 10th or 11th century), (1) and the beauty of the original script
        > was spoiled. Accents and breathing marks, as well as punctuation, have
        > been added by a later hand.
        > (1) Bruce M. Metzger, _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An
        > Introduction to Greek Palaeography_, New York, Oxford: Oxford
        > University Press, 1991, p. 74.
        >
        > However, the Bruce Metzger source only refers to a "later scribe",
        > leaving us in the dark for now as to how Wiki got "10th or 11th
        > century"
        >
        > Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography: An
        > Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
        > Bruce Manning Metzger
        > http://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA74
        > The writing is small and neat, without ornamentation or capitals.
        > Unfortunately the beauty of the original has been spoiled by a later
        > scribe who found the ink faded and traced over every letter afresh,
        > omitting only those letters and words that he believed to be
        > incorrect. A few passages therefore remain to show the original
        > appearance of the first hand.... Accent and breathing marks, as well
        > as punctuation, have been added by a later hand. In the New Testament,
        > quotations from the Old Testament are indicated by marks in the
        > left-hand margin of the column (see the lower part of col. b).
        >
        > Note that this says we only have a few passages with the first hand.
        > Can we see a picture comparison? Overwriting by hand is quite tricky,
        > and we might be able to see lots of shading of the original, under the
        > overwrite, and also areas where the original is not fully covered.
        >
        > In addition to Wieland above, you do get a picture of a page here:
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Vaticanus_B,_2Thess._3,11-18,_Hebr._1,1-2,2.jpg
        >
        > And some more pics here
        > http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm [4]
        >
        > There are some additional questions about the accents and marks of
        > aspiration, however that is a little afield for the question on this
        > post.
        >
        > Returning to the question of the overwriting date, the Vaticanus
        > early date is reflected in this web article, author given only as
        > "DocRob" in the url.
        >
        > The Three Great Uncial Codices:
        > The "Sinaiticus," "Alexandrinus" & "Vaticanus"
        > http://s-studies.0catch.com/DocRob/bible/3greatuncs.htm
        > Originally the work of two scribes, the manuscript is faded in
        > places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th
        > or 11th century, with accents and breathing added along with
        > corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity
        > makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were
        > supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts.
        >
        > Some writers have questioned the textual value of an overwritten
        > manuscript. David L. Brown is one. At any rate, this seems to give us
        > a source for the 10th or 11th century date, William Eugene "Gene"
        > Scott (1929–2005) .
        >
        > The Great Unicals - Dean Burgon Society (2000)
        > David L. Brown
        > http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm
        > How is this manuscript viewed? Though I cannot figure out why, many
        > consider this to be the greatest of Codex witnesses to the New
        > Testament. In fact, this parchment manuscript "was reckoned as the
        > chief authority among MSS. for the Greek Testament of Westcott and
        > Hort." (_The New Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the
        > New Testament_ by Camden M. Cobern; published by Funk and Wagnalls
        > 1922; p.136). But there are those who have questioned this evaluation
        > and with good reason! In 1860, while a temporary chaplain of an
        > English congregation at Rome, John Burgon made a personal examination
        > of it and found some major problems with in the manuscript. This has
        > been confirmed by many others. Here are just a few of the problems.
        > "The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has
        > been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the
        > characters impossible." (_Vaticanus and Sinaiticus_ - (Wayne Jackson
        > url inactive ). Dr. W. Eugene Scott, who owns a large collection of
        > ancient Bible manuscripts and Bibles says, "the manuscript is faded in
        > places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th
        > or 11th century, with accents and breathing [marks] added along with
        > corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. All this activity
        > makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were
        > supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts."
        > (_Codex Vaticanus_ by Dr. W. Eugene Scott, 1996).
        > I QUESTION THE "GREAT WITNESS" VALUE OF ANY MANUSCRIPT HAS BEEN
        > OVERWRITTEN, DOCTORED, CHANGED AND ADDED TO FOR MORE THAN 10
        > CENTURIES.
        >
        > Similarly, Gary LaMore is skeptical about the overwriting:
        >
        > _While Latinos Slept... A Detailed Study of the Reina- Valera 1960
        > New Testament In The Light Of The Critical Greek Text of Westcott and
        > Hort _(2005) - Gary E. LaMore
        > http://books.google.com/books?id=-0e1NG2PpZwC&pg=PA20
        > ... if each letter has been "retraced" or overwritten, how can anyone
        > know with certainly what the original letters of this Codex were? It
        > would seem that this "person" who "retraced" the faded writing of
        > Codex Vaticanus ( B ) destroyed whatever credibility this ancient
        > curiosity had ever had.
        >
        > ============================================================
        >
        > Your thoughts on all the various questions above welcome. (I am using
        > the 15th century date for some of the questions.)
        > Especially:
        >
        > 1) the date of the overwriting - 11th, 15th, unknown, other?
        > 2) who is conjectured to do the overwriting and why? was it after RCC
        > provenance?
        > 3) the textual and historical significance
        > 4) why is this referenced so sketchily and unevenly in the textual
        > literature?
        > 5) can we see clear comparison pictures of overwrite compared to
        > pages or parts with the original text?
        > 6) Did the later scribe try to copy the actual handwriting and letter
        > shapes?
        >
        > Then additional technical issues:
        >
        > 7) Is the 15th century overwrite considered to be 100% the 4th
        > century text?
        > 8) Can layering and shading be seen to visible study?
        > 9) Has spectrographic technology been used to confirm any purported
        > 4th-15th century identity.
        > 10) Does the Vaticanus ownership difficulties prevent any extensive
        > analysis?
        >
        > Thanks !
        >
        > Shalom,
        > Steven Avery
        > Bayside, NY
        >
        > *
        >
        >
        >
        > Links:
        > ------
        > [1]
        > http://www.bl.uk/researchregister/1.10/?app_cd=RR&page_cd=RESEARCHER&l_researcher_id=112
        > [2] http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/nt_manuscripts.html
        > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
        > [4] http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
        > [5]
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbmQ0bGdjBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMzc5MTQ1ODk4
        > [6]
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYzBlaDBsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTM3OTE0NTg5OA--
        > [7] http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
      • Steven Avery
        Hi, Peter Head. Other than the 15th cent date this is all common knowledge. I suggest taking a close look at one page in a colour facsimile or photograph and
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          Peter Head. 
          Other than the 15th cent date this is all common knowledge. I suggest taking a close look at one page in a colour facsimile or photograph and
          coming to your own conclusions. It has been over written. Tischendorf dated the overwriting to the  10th-11th century on the basis of some writing in the same ink. That  seemed relatively plausible to me when I looked at it. Probably Scot  simply mistook the connection between the filler texts (e.g. end of  Hebrews and Revelation, definitely 15th cent.) and the overwriting. No clear evidence how many scribes were involved in that. Some parts  seem to be done better than other parts. Surely relevant to the  determination of what the underlying text says.

          Steven
          Thanks Peter.  
          And let's keep some emphasis on the "surely relevant". :-)

          I will email Scot for comment and possible confirmation, since his comments were rather specific and that would be an unusual memory conflation for a top scholar.

          Scot McKendrick, British Library:
          ".. Vaticanus does not have the extent of correction ... Vaticanus has a very strange appearance. When you look at it as a manuscript expert
          ... actually it looks like a fifteenth century manuscript.  There is one very simple reason for that. Almost the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe..."

          Tischendorf's views do appear in this review of his book:

          Christian Remembrancer (1867)
          The Great Vatican Manuscript
          http://books.google.com/books?id=2_UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA423
          The great mischief was done by the writer indicated above as B3 (p. 413). He seems to have lived in the tenth or eleventh century, full 600 years later than the date of the manuscript, and at a time when its characters would have grown pale, especially if it had been exposed to the damp, or on the rough and outer side of the vellum. This corrector, therefore, undertook to retrace the letters of the older writing, added breathings and accents according to the fashion of his own time, amended the orthography to the practice of his age, and partly by leaving untouched the letters of the text which he rejected, partly by adding others, brought the Codex Vaticanus into its present state.    Some few alterations, liturgical notes, &c. must have been made somewhat later, but do not affect the general result.

          ============================================

          Before continuing with any discussion of the history and significance, I would like to make a couple of additions and one correction to the earlier post.   I am switching to the retracing term, as it is more specific than overwrite (which could apply to any text in a palimpsest).

          Re: [textualcriticism] Vaticanus - "the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe"
          Steven Avery - Sept 13, 2013
          http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8103

          ============================================

          Wieland Willker on the Retracing

          An omission - some important comments from Wieland, not in the previous post.

          The first one is the main one, directly to the issue, where Wieland does mention the retracing (emphasis added).

          Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html

          The text is written in scriptio continua with three columns per page. This is an unusual number. The ink of the text has been retraced carefully and accents have been added, probably in the 10th or 11th CE (Skeat 1999: "before the ninth"). Original (brown) ink can still be seen at many instances (dittographies, moveable-Nu etc.).

          The next quote was about the 15th century additions, which dates may have been mixed up by Scot McKendrick.

          The codex is defective at the beginning and the end. At the beginning 45 chapters of Genesis are missing, in the middle 10 folios of the Psalms are missing and at the end the second part of Hebrews, the Pastorals and Revelation are missing. These missing parts have been replaced in the 15th CE. The NT part (Heb + Rev.) got the Aland no. 1957. The Pastorals have not been replaced. Nobody knows of course what came originally after Hebrews.

          These two I am adding out of curiosity.

          My pet theory:
          I think that it is possible the codex has been washed off to create a palimpsest.
          That a codex ink is fading throughout so strongly is quite exceptional. I think it is possible that at some point someone decided to wash off the ink to create 'recycled' blank parchment. For some reason it was decided later to keep the text and codex and someone had to retrace everything.
          Well, just my private speculation ...

          The Codex is still in the Vatican library and deteriorates.
          Nobody seems interested in analyzing it.
          The master has not yet been found...

           
          ========================================

          T. C. Skeat on the Retracing with pic of Corinthians dual-section

          The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat
          “The 'Codex Sinaiticus', the 'Codex Vaticanus' and Constantine”  (1999)
          Theodore Cressy Skeat
          http://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=PA230
          The Later History of Vaticanus
          We may presume that Vaticanus readied Constantinople in safety and, when all 50 manuscripts had been assembled, would have been inspected by Constantine. Thereafter, nothing is known about its history until the fifteenth century. At some time during this immense period the lettering had become faded and difficult to read, and the entire manuscript was therefore traced over to improve its legibility. Tliis was done with great care, but, as already noted, it inevitably affects the style of the original script, as can be seen in the specimen illustrated Plate 2). When this restoration was carried out is unknown. Possibly it was done before the ninth century, in the course of which the introduction of lectionaries and other service-books rendered these huge bibles obsolete. Thereafter a period of increasing neglect and deterioration followed. The binding collapsed, with the loss of the boards, and leaves were lost at both beginning and end, while a whole gathering fell out from the middle of Psalms. It was in this sorry state that the manuscript finally came to light and was hastily renovated, the missing portions of Genesis, Psalms, and from the middle of Hebrews onwards being replaced in a fifteenth-century hand making no attempt to match the original. (p. 230-231)

          So we have the overwriting in three different periods:

          "possibly before the ninth" - Skeat
          10th or 11th CE - Tischendorf, Wieland Willker
          15th century - Scot McKendrick (verbal, possibly a memory error)

          Continuing with Skeat:

          Plate 2
          This shows our of the very few places in Vaticanus where the original script can be seen (p. 1479, col. II, lines 32-9; the text is 2 Corinthians 3:15-16. As explained in the text, the scribe had accidentally written a passage twice over, and the restorer of the writing had inked over only the repetition. The illustration, here enlarged, shows that the horizontal strokes had faded away, giving a ghostly effect, while the tracing over has completely altered the character of the script so that comparison with Sinaiticus is not possible. Below is shown the same specimen of Vaticanus, but with the missing horizontal lines drawn in, various external marks such as the brackets indicating omission removed, and the whole reduced to the original size of the MS. This is as far as we can get to seeing the original script of Vaticanus, and resemblances to individual trails of Sinaiticus can be picked out, e.g. the long tail of rho, impinging on the line below, which is characteristic of Scribe D. Nevertheless there is one marked difference. In Sinailtcus, in the case of all three scribes, the letters are tightly packed, sometimes actually touching or, if tau, or upsilon are involved, even overlapping. In this respect Vaticanus differs radically, letters being carefully separated throughout. In the right-hand margin can be seen one of the section numbers discussed above. (p. 234-235)
           
          []


          Here the overwriting looks quite sloppy, and not fully trustworthy.  You can see noting how poor is the original section that was overwritten. I would really like to see other pages and see if they look the same in their overwritten sections. Also, are there other original sections available? 

          Is all the retracing, throughout the New Testament, generally as sloppy and obvious as this section?  Why don't we see similar sloppiness in the various Vaticanus pics available?

          Metzger had said that:

          "A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand." Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981), p. 74.

          Is there a definitive list of these passages?

          ============================================================

          Vaticanus Pics

          Does anybody have an album of Vaticanus pics, or the best method to see what is available?  Is it necessary to spend $$$?
           

          Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 - Wieland - http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html
          Codex Vaticanus  2Thess. 3,11-18 - Hebr._1,1-2,2
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_Vaticanus_B,_2Thess._3,11-18,_Hebr._1,1-2,2.jpg

          The second one could be compared to the Corinthians section, also what about the fainter section in the first column?  The issues about precision of overwriting seem to be rather interesting.

          And some more pics here
          http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm

          ============================================================

           
          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Bayside, NY
           
        • Peter Streitenberger
          Dear friends and colleagues, I want to announce that the new Festschrift for Prof. Maurice Robinson is available now. Here are the contributors and their
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 25, 2014
          • 0 Attachment

            Dear friends and colleagues,

             

            I want to announce that the new Festschrift for Prof. Maurice Robinson is available now. Here are the contributors and their essays:

             

            - A MODEST EXPLANATION FOR THE LAYMAN OF IDEAS RELATED TO DETERMING THE TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (Timothy Friberg)

            - SCRIBAL HABITS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT (Andrew Wilson)

            - A TRANSLATOR TAKES A LINGUISTIC LOOK AT MARK’S GOSPEL (John R. Himes)

            - EARLY TEXTUAL RECENSION IN ALEXANDRIA (T. David Andersen)

            - THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE VATICANUS UMLAUTS TO FAMILY 1 (Edward D. Gravely)

            - VARIETIES OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXT (Timothy J. Finnney)

            - THE ALEXANDRIAN PRESUMPTION OF AUTHENTICITY REGARDING THE MATTHEW 27:49 ADDITION (Abidan P. Shah)

            - ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: A NEW CONCEPT? (Thomas R. Edgar)

            - THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF LUKE 24:53 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS (James A. Borland)

            - THE ADULTERESS AND HER ACCUSERS (Andrew Wilson)

            - 'BURNED UP' OR 'DISCOVERED'? (Paul A. Himes)

            - ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE BYZANTINE AND ALEXANDRIAN TEXT TYPES  (T. David Andersen)

            - BYZANTINE BIBLIOGRAPHY (Mike Arcieri)

             

            It's a limited Hardcover Edition. If interested, please take a look at this Amazon link:

            http://www.amazon.de/Digging-Truth-Collected-regarding-Festschrift/dp/3942729814/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398423111&sr=1-1

             

            Yours

            Peter, Germany

             

             

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