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

[textualcriticism] Vaticanus probabilities - textual undercurrents and text underwriting (4th century)

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi, [textualcriticism] Correctors Hands in Codex Vaticanus Wieland Willker - November, 2008
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      [textualcriticism] Correctors' Hands in Codex Vaticanus
      Wieland Willker - November, 2008
      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/4213

      "I wrote repeatedly that Vaticanus deserves an in depth study.
      There are so many things to discover.
      It is our single most important manuscript."

      In response to some of the recent questions about the overwriting, and the original text:

      Kent D. Clarke post #8180
      Actually, Vaticanus is pretty straight forward and easy to read with a nice set of digital imagesÂ… at least for the NT portion of it. The issue isn't so much formal erasures, but the decision of later corrector/s declining to reinforce (or overwrite) the text when they disagree with the earlier reading. And with color images, almost all of these declinations to reinforce the text are clearly visible and distinguishable. They are, however, extremely difficult to pick up from black and white microfilmsÂ… I'm not sure the technology being discussed ((which I have actually seen being used for other applications) would be particularly illuminating for Codex Vaticanus. 

      Steven
      Kent, it sounds like you are talking about the readability of the overwriting, dated to maybe 1000 AD, or possibly the 1400s (in which case it was more likely to have been in the Vatican library.)  I tried to express the really basic concern in post #8181

      Whatever the time, the issue is simple.

      What degree of assurance is there that this later, clear-reading text, represents the text that was written in the 4th century?

      Apparently, much of that earlier text we can not make out today, exactly.  I have a 6-letter line as an example. 

      As to the scribe that did the overwrite, we do not know what he saw. Could he make out the full text at the time of the overwriting?

      My understanding is that there are indications that the later scribe tried to be faithful to the undertext. So that was generally good enough, e.g.  for John William Burgon on the day he saw the manuscript. That is far from a rigorous examination of the question.

      And that does not mean the later scribe:

      1) could make out the earlier text
      2) might not have made scribal errors
      3) might not have made alterations  - whether or not he had a full and clear (1)

      Now the apparatus takes text written by the latter scribe (B3,Bb) and tells us with surety, 100%, that this text from the 2nd millennium is the 4th century text. Even on tiny yet significant textual differences like Mark 7:19 and 1 Timothy 3:16 and Luke 2:22.

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

      Three samples of textually minor yet doctrinally significant variants - feel free to supply more.

      These three variants can show us how small can be the actual ultra-significant textual variant.

      Mark 7:19
      Because it entereth not into his heart,
      but into the belly,
      and goeth out into the draught,
      purging all meats?

      kaqarizon - Byz and TR -
      kaqarizwn - Alexandrian

      1 Timothy 3:16
      And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
      God was manifest in the flesh,
      justified in the Spirit,
      seen of angels,
      preached unto the Gentiles,
      believed on in the world,
      received up into glory.

      Emacs!   or qeos - God (pic of nomina sacra with overscore which can be faint)
      os - who

      Luke 2:22
      And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
      they brought him to Jerusalem,
      to present him to the Lord;

      auths - her   - Beza, Elzevir, Scrivener TR, some ECW -
      autwn - their - Greek mss, other TR, some ECW

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

      Now, let us put aside considerations like:

      "we can be sure of Vaticanus because other manuscripts have ... X, Y, Z". 

      Basically irrelevant.  The issue here is only what we can tell from Vaticanus, 4th century, from the manuscript itself. Direct examination.  Everything else, in this context, is conjecture.  Maybe reasonable conjecture, in some cases.  However, not textual analysis of the manuscript.

      There are only two reasons why we could claim to be sure of the Vaticanus 4th century reading.

      a) we see the text, by eye, or by machine
      b) we have absolute confidence that the overwrite fully reflects the underwrite, despite the (1-2-3) concerns above.

      Now I understand that there is not an easy notation to indicate this type of concern in the apparatus, which might vary greatly in terms of the particular variant.  (So make a new code.) 

      Clearly the text underneath does not have the Pericope Adultera or the heavenly witnesses (although the umlauts are an issue) or even in many case one word omissions.

      If the letters would not fit, the apparatus you acquit.

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

      The Real Issue

      So, can you, or any of our learned textual analysts, tell us whether we are to fully trust, 100% (or even 99%, or maybe 95%, you make a probability) the 4th century Vaticanus apparatus entry on textually small variants -- variants where you do not see the underwrite?

      Why is this given to us, by the apparatus and by commentators, as a 100% definite 4th century text?  When what is being read is the second millennium. 

      And what is originally written is seen through a glass darkly?

      Thanks.

      Continuation from this post that has most of the previous

      [textualcriticism] Vaticanus retracing - spectrographic analysis - palimpsest - umlauts and underwriting - Codex Sinaiticus English translation
      Steven Avery - Nov 13, 2011
      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8181

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY




    • Steven Avery
      Hi, Let s try make the question very clear and simple. For those of you who use an apparatus, or those of you who work on apparatuses, or quote them in
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        Let's try make the question very clear and simple.

        For those of you who use an apparatus, or those of you who work on apparatuses, or quote them in defending or opposing the reading in Bible editions (e.g. the NETBible online has hundreds of such quotes) .... and are used to B being the first entry, and seen as the 4th century text of significance.

        does the Vaticanus overwriting accurately represent the 4th c. text?

        Always, usually, sometimes, it depends, I'm awaiting more study, dunno?

        Is there anybody here who wants to say "yes" or "no" or "maybe/probably/possibly" and give your reasons.  A simple answer, or a complex answer.  Just share away. 

        Are there any textual issues more significant than the proper use and evaluation of the central manuscript?
        Any attempts appreciated.

        Thanks.

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

        "the exploration of this exceptional volume remains still to be carried out."
         Eugene Tisserant (1884-1972), The Vatican Greek Codex 1209, 5,

        "A definitive appraisal of the corrections and annotations made to the codex during the course of time is still to be undertaken."
         Paul Canart and Carlo M. Martini, The Holy Bible: The Vatican Greek Codex 1209 (Codex B) Facsimile Reproduction by order of his Holiness Paul VI. The New Testament. Introduction (Vatican City: Vatican, 1965) 8. 

        Quoted in Payne and Canart, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus, 2000
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/NovT-Payne.pdf

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

        Earlier discussion here:

        [textualcriticism] Vaticanus probabilities - textual  undercurrents and text underwriting (4th century)
        Steven Avery - November 15, 2013
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8189

        The Real Issue
        So, can you, or any of our learned textual analysts, tell us whether we are to fully trust, 100% (or even 99%, or maybe 95%, you make a probability) the 4th century Vaticanus apparatus entry on textually small variants -- variants where you do not see the underwrite? Why is this given to us, by the apparatus and by commentators, as a 100% definite 4th century text?  When what is being read is the second millennium. 

        [textualcriticism] Correctors' Hands in Codex Vaticanus
        Wieland Willker - November, 2008
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/4213
        "I wrote repeatedly that Vaticanus deserves an in depth study.
        There are so many things to discover.
        It is our single most important manuscript."

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

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        Bayside, NY

         
      • yennifmit
        Hi Steven, I transcribed the Letter to the Hebrews from Codex B using Martini s 1968 photographic facsimile for images of the manuscript. You can see my
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi Steven,


          I transcribed the Letter to the Hebrews from Codex B using Martini's 1968 photographic facsimile for images of the manuscript. You can see my transcription notes on pages 79-101 of part 2 of my PhD dissertation:


          http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf


          I don't doubt that the retracing gives an accurate representation of the writing underneath. Reading my transcription notes for Codex B should give you a sense of how often there is doubt about the underwriting.


          Best,


          Tim Finney

           



          ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <stevenavery@...> wrote:

          Hi,

          Let's try make the question very clear and simple.

          For those of you who use an apparatus, or those of you who work on apparatuses, or quote them in defending or opposing the reading in Bible editions (e.g. the NETBible online has hundreds of such quotes) .... and are used to B being the first entry, and seen as the 4th century text of significance.

          does the Vaticanus overwriting accurately represent the 4th c. text?

          Always, usually, sometimes, it depends, I'm awaiting more study, dunno?

          Is there anybody here who wants to say "yes" or "no" or "maybe/probably/possibly" and give your reasons.  A simple answer, or a complex answer.  Just share away. 

          Are there any textual issues more significant than the proper use and evaluation of the central manuscript?
          Any attempts appreciated.

          Thanks.

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

          "the exploration of this exceptional volume remains still to be carried out."
           Eugene Tisserant (1884-1972), The Vatican Greek Codex 1209, 5,

          "A definitive appraisal of the corrections and annotations made to the codex during the course of time is still to be undertaken."
           Paul Canart and Carlo M. Martini, The Holy Bible: The Vatican Greek Codex 1209 (Codex B) Facsimile Reproduction by order of his Holiness Paul VI. The New Testament. Introduction (Vatican City: Vatican, 1965) 8. 

          Quoted in Payne and Canart, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus, 2000
          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/NovT-Payne.pdf

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

          Earlier discussion here:

          [textualcriticism] Vaticanus probabilities - textual  undercurrents and text underwriting (4th century)
          Steven Avery - November 15, 2013
          http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8189

          The Real Issue
          So, can you, or any of our learned textual analysts, tell us whether we are to fully trust, 100% (or even 99%, or maybe 95%, you make a probability) the 4th century Vaticanus apparatus entry on textually small variants -- variants where you do not see the underwrite? Why is this given to us, by the apparatus and by commentators, as a 100% definite 4th century text?  When what is being read is the second millennium. 

          [textualcriticism] Correctors' Hands in Codex Vaticanus
          Wieland Willker - November, 2008
          http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/4213
          "I wrote repeatedly that Vaticanus deserves an in depth study.
          There are so many things to discover.
          It is our single most important manuscript."

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

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Bayside, NY

           
        • Steven Avery
          Hi, Tim Finney Hi Steven, I transcribed the Letter to the Hebrews from Codex B using Martini s 1968 photographic facsimile for images of the manuscript. You
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, 

            Tim Finney
            Hi Steven, I transcribed the Letter to the Hebrews from Codex B using Martini's 1968 photographic facsimile for images of the manuscript. You can see my transcription notes on pages 79-101 of part 2 of my PhD dissertation: http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf I don't doubt that the retracing gives an accurate representation of the writing underneath. Reading my transcription notes for Codex B should give you a sense of how often there is doubt about the underwriting.

            Steven
            Thanks Tim.  Nice to see some feedback and discussion!
            If possible, could you help out a bit more? 

            First, I think we can agree there is a major difference between variants that have:

            1) added or subtracted text
            2) alternate text - especially when
            2a)   ................         the difference is only an alternate letter or two within in word. 
            3) word order

            Some of these variants will change the number of letters underneath, others will not. And often we see a 1-to-1 letter correspondence between the overwrite and the underwrite.

            From my earlier posts, Mark 7:19, Luke 2:22, and additional examples like Romans 5:1, can fit under 2a. (And I mentioned 1 Timothy 3:16 however Vaticanus only has that in the later text, Codex 1957).  From looking at pictures, it seems that discerning the underneath text can be nuanced and complex, if it is indeed possible. 

            The basic issue on such variants is whether the underwriting text is determined by sight, or by deduction.

            Note that these alternate letter variants can be among the most important variants.  The many rejected omissions in Vaticanus, the tendency to such omissions from an abbreviated or compendium text, can make its evidentiary value for omissions in general virtually nil.  Depending on your textual paradigms and consistency. This is especially heightened with the scholarly turnaround in recent years to the common sense understanding that omissions are, overall, the easier occurrence.

            Now, lets go to your studies, Tim, and let us look at the word that gets a lot of attention from Hebrews 1:3, the fool and knave spot. 

            And I can work here with the pic from Wieland's fool and knave page, showing Vaticanus for Hebrews 1:3 and a bit more.

            Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
            A textcritical complaint
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.htm

            The first line is the full word, the second line lacks the last letter but, enlarged, gives a far better picture of the underneath. 

            ====================================================
             (pic section)
            Emacs!  
            (pic section end)
            ====================================================

            My question is fairly straightforward:

            Do the scribes from Tischendorf on decide the original 400 A.D. text as fanerwn (as in your article, and line 4 in the small 9 line pic) by actually clearly making out the seven letters underneath the current fanerwn?

            Or does deciding the original text involve a deduction based on the number of letters and a perceived 1-to-1 correspondence of total letters? 

            Note that I am not particularly concerned about the disagreements here, that you document, about what was written by intermediate scribes. That is another story. And it is interesting in that it shows that the scholars disagree, but it does not address the basic question of reading the underwriting.

            You can see, I hope, that, at least from this pic, making out the original letters (taking away the overwriting) is far from intuitively obvious. So this is why I ask the question.  In fact, from a simple look at the pic, it seems that there is lots of float possibility in the original text, and even the 1-to-1 correspondence is not definite, especially around letter #2.

            Again, though, I am asking you to read the underneath without drilling down the overwrite.

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

            In Hebrews 1:1 there is a two-letter variant (not of great significance translationally, yet helpful because it is right at the beginning of the section you studied) that fits under 2a above, where the readings are:
              epoihsen (TR)
              escatou (Byz-Alex)

            Now we may know from deduction that the second text, the overwrite, is also the underneath text. 
            Again, though, the real question:

            Are the scholars, from Tischendorf until today, able to see the same letter text underneath?

            Or is the original text often decided more by a burrowing down deduction (combined with external knowledge) than by actually discerning each individual faded or washed letter?  Remember, if we can not make out the underneath writing, we do not know if the 2nd millennium instaurator was able to make it out either.

            Some additional interesting examples.
            Hebrews 1:12, 2:1, 3:5, 3:9 and more - spelling differences, which can have similar questions to our two examples above.

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

            One last question, for any reader.
            When Tregelles noted 2,000 differences in Vaticanus collations:

            An account of the printed text of the GNT: with remarks on it revision upon critical principles:  together with a collation of the critical texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in common use - (1854)
            Samuel Prideaux Tregelles
            http://books.google.com/books?id=uwc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156
            "One principal object which I had in going abroad was to endeavour to collate for myself the Vatican MS. (B). This important document was collated for Bentley by an Italian named Mico, and this collation was published in 1799; it was subsequently collated (with the exception of the Gospels of Luke and John) by Birch. A third collation (made previously to either of these, in 1669,) by Bartolocci, remains in MS at Paris. As this is the most important of all New Testament MSS, I had compared the two published collations carefully with each other: I found that they differed in nearly two thousand places; many of these discrepancies were readings noticed by one and not by the other. I went to Rome, and during the five months that I was there, I sought diligently to obtain permission to collate the MS accurately, or at least to examine it in the places in which Birch and Bentley differ with regard to its readings."

            Is it possible that Birch and Bentley had a different approaches to the original text / overwrite question?
            Could that account for the huge number of differences?

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

            Thanks.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Bayside, NY
          • yennifmit
            Hi Steven, My approach in transcribing manuscripts is to determine things by sight. However, when a later hand has written over the top of an earlier hand s
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 25, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              Hi Steven,


              My approach in transcribing manuscripts is to determine things by sight. However, when a later hand has written over the top of an earlier hand's work, there is often an element of doubt about what was originally there. A long hard look at a good facsimile can help one decide but in some cases an element of doubt remains. Where there is a real question about what is written beneath, one can look elsewhere for suggestions, such as what other witnesses have at the place. 


              I tend to think of problems like this in Bayesian terms: the more information the better but sometimes there is not enough information to be confident of what was written underneath. Nevertheless, my abiding impression of the retraced writing of Codex B is that what is written beneath is rarely subject to reasonable doubt.


              On spelling differences, I think they are a clue to provenance.


              Best,


              Tim Finney




              ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <stevenavery@...> wrote:

              Hi, 

              Tim Finney
              Hi Steven, I transcribed the Letter to the Hebrews from Codex B using Martini's 1968 photographic facsimile for images of the manuscript. You can see my transcription notes on pages 79-101 of part 2 of my PhD dissertation: http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf I don't doubt that the retracing gives an accurate representation of the writing underneath. Reading my transcription notes for Codex B should give you a sense of how often there is doubt about the underwriting.

              Steven
              Thanks Tim.  Nice to see some feedback and discussion!
              If possible, could you help out a bit more? 

              First, I think we can agree there is a major difference between variants that have:

              1) added or subtracted text
              2) alternate text - especially when
              2a)   ................         the difference is only an alternate letter or two within in word. 
              3) word order

              Some of these variants will change the number of letters underneath, others will not. And often we see a 1-to-1 letter correspondence between the overwrite and the underwrite.

              From my earlier posts, Mark 7:19, Luke 2:22, and additional examples like Romans 5:1, can fit under 2a. (And I mentioned 1 Timothy 3:16 however Vaticanus only has that in the later text, Codex 1957).  From looking at pictures, it seems that discerning the underneath text can be nuanced and complex, if it is indeed possible. 

              The basic issue on such variants is whether the underwriting text is determined by sight, or by deduction.

              Note that these alternate letter variants can be among the most important variants.  The many rejected omissions in Vaticanus, the tendency to such omissions from an abbreviated or compendium text, can make its evidentiary value for omissions in general virtually nil.  Depending on your textual paradigms and consistency. This is especially heightened with the scholarly turnaround in recent years to the common sense understanding that omissions are, overall, the easier occurrence.

              Now, lets go to your studies, Tim, and let us look at the word that gets a lot of attention from Hebrews 1:3, the fool and knave spot. 

              And I can work here with the pic from Wieland's fool and knave page, showing Vaticanus for Hebrews 1:3 and a bit more.

              Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
              A textcritical complaint
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.htm

              The first line is the full word, the second line lacks the last letter but, enlarged, gives a far better picture of the underneath. 

              ====================================================
               (pic section)
              Emacs!  
              (pic section end)
              ====================================================

              My question is fairly straightforward:

              Do the scribes from Tischendorf on decide the original 400 A.D. text as fanerwn (as in your article, and line 4 in the small 9 line pic) by actually clearly making out the seven letters underneath the current fanerwn?

              Or does deciding the original text involve a deduction based on the number of letters and a perceived 1-to-1 correspondence of total letters? 

              Note that I am not particularly concerned about the disagreements here, that you document, about what was written by intermediate scribes. That is another story. And it is interesting in that it shows that the scholars disagree, but it does not address the basic question of reading the underwriting.

              You can see, I hope, that, at least from this pic, making out the original letters (taking away the overwriting) is far from intuitively obvious. So this is why I ask the question.  In fact, from a simple look at the pic, it seems that there is lots of float possibility in the original text, and even the 1-to-1 correspondence is not definite, especially around letter #2.

              Again, though, I am asking you to read the underneath without drilling down the overwrite.

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

              In Hebrews 1:1 there is a two-letter variant (not of great significance translationally, yet helpful because it is right at the beginning of the section you studied) that fits under 2a above, where the readings are:
                epoihsen (TR)
                escatou (Byz-Alex)

              Now we may know from deduction that the second text, the overwrite, is also the underneath text. 
              Again, though, the real question:

              Are the scholars, from Tischendorf until today, able to see the same letter text underneath?

              Or is the original text often decided more by a burrowing down deduction (combined with external knowledge) than by actually discerning each individual faded or washed letter?  Remember, if we can not make out the underneath writing, we do not know if the 2nd millennium instaurator was able to make it out either.

              Some additional interesting examples.
              Hebrews 1:12, 2:1, 3:5, 3:9 and more - spelling differences, which can have similar questions to our two examples above.

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

              One last question, for any reader.
              When Tregelles noted 2,000 differences in Vaticanus collations:

              An account of the printed text of the GNT: with remarks on it revision upon critical principles:  together with a collation of the critical texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in common use - (1854)
              Samuel Prideaux Tregelles
              http://books.google.com/books?id=uwc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156
              "One principal object which I had in going abroad was to endeavour to collate for myself the Vatican MS. (B). This important document was collated for Bentley by an Italian named Mico, and this collation was published in 1799; it was subsequently collated (with the exception of the Gospels of Luke and John) by Birch. A third collation (made previously to either of these, in 1669,) by Bartolocci, remains in MS at Paris. As this is the most important of all New Testament MSS, I had compared the two published collations carefully with each other: I found that they differed in nearly two thousand places; many of these discrepancies were readings noticed by one and not by the other. I went to Rome, and during the five months that I was there, I sought diligently to obtain permission to collate the MS accurately, or at least to examine it in the places in which Birch and Bentley differ with regard to its readings."

              Is it possible that Birch and Bentley had a different approaches to the original text / overwrite question?
              Could that account for the huge number of differences?

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

              Thanks.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              Bayside, NY
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.