Steven Avery
Administrator
kephalaia - kephalaion
This is a continuation of:
Vaticanus linguistics, provenance and production - Bill Cooper linguistics note
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.273
Search Linkman for "euphonic dental"
=======================
Why would Vaticanus have Latin word forms? One obvious possibility is that there was a Latin exemplar in the source material. Another possibility is that it was written later than 4th century. Yet either of those possibilities would make Vaticanus simply a minor manuscript in textual circles.
Hort tried to fudge the problem. The Rome place of writing proposed by Hort is today rejected, yet the Latin word forms remains unexplained.
Even the dismissal by Robinson looks unusual. If Jerome was influenced by manuscripts in Caesarea to place in the Acts chapter headings, and in the modern theory two major uncials before Jerome had the chapter headings, then why did those headings virtually disappear in the Greek manuscript line?
In this thread we plan, at the very least, to look at some of these sources. Our focus is not on the debate between Alexandria and Caesarea for these manuscripts, it is much more simple:
1) What happened to the west, probably Rome, identification as the probable place of authorship?
2) And what happened to the reasons given by Hort for this identification?
If we run into other good explanations of the phenomenon, we will share what we find. And why did Hort include Sinaitiicus with Vaticanus? Was it simply the Acts headings. Remember, James Donaldson, looking at Hermas and Barnabas, emphasized that Sinaiticus has Latin forms that are inconsistent with a 4th century Greek ms. Hort did not dispute his scholarship, he simply opined that Donaldson "proved too much".
We may also look at the homoeoteleuton explanation of Hort. e.g. Where are the specific points where Hort there was an omission based on homoeoteleuton. And, where are spots where those who support a pure traditional text might find the 12-14 character homoeoteleuton spots. We can also document some of the discussions to date on the overwriting and washing of the ms. We can also look at the homoeoteleuton question in Sinaiticus.
================================
For Hort's section we can use:
The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised (1881)
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233 (Hort claiming homoeoteluetons from source document to fixed length)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA265 Rome by linguistics and by Euthalian
p. 265 is on the sister thread, here is the Euthalian section, p. 266 which does get some response, such as in Stichometry by James Rendel Harris.
================================
Stichometery (1893)
James Rendel Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=JKQWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA74
Robinson and Kenyon are online.
Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius, Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, and the Armenian Version (1895)
Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtRMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus section is p. 36-43, also p. 101
Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1901, 1912 second edition)
Frederic George Kenyon
https://archive.org/stream/handbooktotextua00keny#page/82/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y18wAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA82
"Hort inclines to Rome"
================================
Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B
http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/01/hort-on-homoeoteleuton-codb.html
homoioteleuton: Vaticanus Singulars - Steven Avery's Research
(server error at the moment)
Nazaroo index
http://bibliobloglibrary.com/?blog=210
================================
Post on Sept 5, 2015
[TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5980
Steven Avery - March 26, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/4066
This is a continuation of:
Vaticanus linguistics, provenance and production - Bill Cooper linguistics note
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.273
Search Linkman for "euphonic dental"
=======================
Why would Vaticanus have Latin word forms? One obvious possibility is that there was a Latin exemplar in the source material. Another possibility is that it was written later than 4th century. Yet either of those possibilities would make Vaticanus simply a minor manuscript in textual circles.
Hort tried to fudge the problem. The Rome place of writing proposed by Hort is today rejected, yet the Latin word forms remains unexplained.
Even the dismissal by Robinson looks unusual. If Jerome was influenced by manuscripts in Caesarea to place in the Acts chapter headings, and in the modern theory two major uncials before Jerome had the chapter headings, then why did those headings virtually disappear in the Greek manuscript line?
In this thread we plan, at the very least, to look at some of these sources. Our focus is not on the debate between Alexandria and Caesarea for these manuscripts, it is much more simple:
1) What happened to the west, probably Rome, identification as the probable place of authorship?
2) And what happened to the reasons given by Hort for this identification?
If we run into other good explanations of the phenomenon, we will share what we find. And why did Hort include Sinaitiicus with Vaticanus? Was it simply the Acts headings. Remember, James Donaldson, looking at Hermas and Barnabas, emphasized that Sinaiticus has Latin forms that are inconsistent with a 4th century Greek ms. Hort did not dispute his scholarship, he simply opined that Donaldson "proved too much".
We may also look at the homoeoteleuton explanation of Hort. e.g. Where are the specific points where Hort there was an omission based on homoeoteleuton. And, where are spots where those who support a pure traditional text might find the 12-14 character homoeoteleuton spots. We can also document some of the discussions to date on the overwriting and washing of the ms. We can also look at the homoeoteleuton question in Sinaiticus.
================================
For Hort's section we can use:
The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised (1881)
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233 (Hort claiming homoeoteluetons from source document to fixed length)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA265 Rome by linguistics and by Euthalian
p. 265 is on the sister thread, here is the Euthalian section, p. 266 which does get some response, such as in Stichometry by James Rendel Harris.
================================
Stichometery (1893)
James Rendel Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=JKQWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA74
Robinson and Kenyon are online.
Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius, Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, and the Armenian Version (1895)
Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtRMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus section is p. 36-43, also p. 101
Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1901, 1912 second edition)
Frederic George Kenyon
https://archive.org/stream/handbooktotextua00keny#page/82/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y18wAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA82
"Hort inclines to Rome"
================================
Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B
http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/01/hort-on-homoeoteleuton-codb.html
homoioteleuton: Vaticanus Singulars - Steven Avery's Research
(server error at the moment)
Nazaroo index
http://bibliobloglibrary.com/?blog=210
================================
Post on Sept 5, 2015
[TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5980
[TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
Steven Avery - March 26, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/4066
There is a rich literature that understood the corruption and omission (compendium - abbreviated) nature of Codex Vaticanus shortly after the Cardinal Mai publication in 1857. So I plan to post on that analysis separately, including looking at articles from the British Quarterly Review, Titan, the Journal of Sacred Literature.
So I was curious if this early awareness of Vatican corruption was properly referenced in the basic literature, like Wikipedia or Metzger.
The answer is no <shocked, shocked>.
However I did see on Wiki :
"According to Hort, it was copied from a manuscript whose line length was 12–14 letters per line, because where the Codex Vaticanus's scribe made large omissions, they were typically 12–14 letters long "
Hmmm...
Wait a minute.
Hort has Vaticanus as an extremely pure text, usually.
The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
http://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233
When the singular readings of B are examined for the purpose here explained, it is found that on the one hand the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy, and on the other his slips are not proportionally numerous or bad. Like most transcribers, he occasionally omits necessary portions of text because his eye returned to the exemplar at the wrong place. As the longer portions of text so omitted consist usually either of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was doubtless written in lines of this length. Often, but not always, an obvious cause of omission may be found in homoeoteieuton, the beginning or ending of consecutive portions of text with the same combinations of letters or of words. Reduplications due to the same cause likewise occur, but more rarely. More characteristic than these commonest of lapses is a tendency to double a single short word, syllable, or letter, or to drop one of two similar consecutive short words, syllables, or letters.
(pic of verses from p. 234)
So I checked, and the only references to this I found are James Royse and Nazaroo's blog by Ben.
Royse has his fine writing :
Scribal habits in early Greek New Testament papyri (2008)
James Ronald Royse
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA40
Hort on singulars.
Earlier Royse had quoted the Hort section in:
The Treatment of Scribal Leaps in Metzger's Textual Commentary (1983)
James R. Royse
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...88AF0C11F.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=3391976
And who else discusses this Hortian acknowledgement of many Vaticanus corruptions ?
Monday, January 3, 2011
Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B Mr. Scrivener
http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/01/hort-on-homoeoteleuton-codb.html
This is a fine article, and afaik has not been posted and discussed here.
Last edited: