Lost Keys by Jay Curry Treat

[Steven Avery]

Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek "Song of Songs” and Its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses (1996)
Jay Curry Treat

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2990&context=edissertations

p. vii
The Greek rubrics focus on the narrative level of the text rather than its allegorical interpretation. The rubrics of Codex Sinaiticus bear a literary relationship with rubrics in several later Latin manuscripts Their use in both Greek and Latin is examined. Redaction criticism is used to speculate about the development of the rubrics from a hypothetical Greek predecessor

p. xv
In my first semester of graduate work, I participated in a course offered by E. Ann Matter called “Medieval Interpretations of Canticles.” In that course, I fell in love — with the Codex Sinaiticus text of the Old Greek Song of Songs. The codex is a beautiful labor of love, whether viewed in person at the British Museum or in Count Tischendorf's magnificent facsimile. Its text of Song of Songs is particularly intriguing, because the red ink of its rubrics are a bright splash of color scattered through the black words of the biblical text. These rubrics present the Song of Songs as a single narrative, a dialogue or
drama with characters and action. They are evidence of several early attempts to unwrap the mysteries of the Song of Songs.
The more I examined the rubrics and the text of the codex, the more deeply I was
embraced by the mysteries they represented. The rubrics had Latin cousins, and by
comparing their family resemblances, I could deduce what their common ancestor must
have looked like. And it looked surprising — a non-Christian, non-allcgorical narrative.

The text meanwhile led me to inquire into its oldest ancestor and its other relatives:
the Old Latin, Jerome’s two versions, and what turned out to be the oldest non-Hebrew
manuscript of the Song — a translation of the Old Greek into a rare Fayyumic form of the
Coptic language.

I began this research with the intention of gathering and evaluating all of the
surviving, fragmentary evidence for Jewish and Christian interpreters before Origen. It has
turned out that the Old Greek translation and its manuscripts have been more than enough
to absorb my efforts. My related study of Aquila’s translation will soon be published, and
I plan further investigations into the early Greek translations. The interrelations between
the comments attributed to Tannaitic, early Amoraic, and early Christian writers still need
to be analyzed.

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 1

p. 8-9
By the end of the second century, some Christians were using Old Greek Song of
Songs. Around the end of the second century, Melito of Sardis finds Song of Songs
among the Hebrew scriptures and refers to it.25 Probably during this century, the Old Latin
translation was made from the Old Greek; Tertullian is the first to cite the Old Latin, early
in the third century.26

It is possible that the first explicit citation of the Song of Songs in Christian circles
comes to us from Theophilus of Antioch, who flourished in the last quarter of the second
century. The citation occurs in commentary on Song of Songs 3:9,

Hippolytus

Origen

Jerome

p. 16
The Hebrew lying behind Jerome’s Vulgate is, perhaps predictably, the closest of the versional Vorlagen to the
Masoretic Text.

p. 17
Various forms of the Old Greek translation of Song of Songs were translated into a
variety of other languages. A few of the “daughter translations” of the Old Greek deserve
mention here. An Old Greek text was translated into Latin in the second century. Forms
of this Old Latin text were used for centuries in Latin Europe and Africa, even after the
Vulgate appeared. Jerome made two recensions of the Old Latin, the first recension (in
387) according to the hexaplaric text of Origen, and a second, more thorough recension
according to the Hebrew, the Vulgate (in 398).57 A pre-Jerome Old Latin and Jerome’s
Hexaplaric Emendation of it can both be reconstructed to an amazing extent. Both are
particularly important witnesses for the state of the Old Greek text before and after Origen.
particularly important witnesses for the state of the Old Greek text before and after Origen.

p. 18-19
Chapter Two examines the Old Greek text for its characteristics. ...
of modest skill, working about the beginning of the common era. Some of its scribes
provided aids for the use of readers: divisions of sense-units and rubrics (headings in red
ink) to identify changes in speaker. For example, Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century Old
Greek manuscript, uses rubrics to indicate speakers such as “The Bride” or “The Groom’s
Companions.”

Chapter Three examines the rubrics in Old Greek manuscripts, and discovers that
they have no known precedent in late antique manuscripts of drama and dialogue. Instead,
the rubrics appear to have been a new genre of interpretive material. The rubrics lead the
implied reader to read the Song as a dramatic narrative in which the same speakers appear
again and again and carry on a dialogue. Although “para-textual,” the rubrics strongly
influence the reception of the text by its reader. For the most part, the Greek rubrics focus
on the narrative level of the text, without specifying an allegorical interpretation. (In
contrast, most of the Latin rubrics focus on specifying an allegorical interpretation). The
restraint of the Greek rubrics with regard to allegory means that they leave the text open to
many interpretations, at the same time that they guide the reader toward a very particular
understanding of the narrative. Like other allegorical interpretations of Song of Songs, the
rubrics both theologize the eroticism and eroticize the theology.

Chapter Four examines the rubrics of the Codex Sinaiticus in more detail. These rubrics bear a literary relationship with rubrics in several later Latin manuscripts. Their use in both Greek and Latin is examined. Redaction criticism is used to speculate about their development from a hypothetical Greek predecessor. Examination of this rubric tradition suggests the possibility its first creators may have been Greek-speaking Jews, even though the tradition survives only in a later form in Christian manuscripts.

 

[Steven Avery]

Lost Keys quote pic p. XV

p. 20
Chapter 1
The Old Greek Text of the Song of Songs

p. 22 Typo Tischendoff

In the interim, the present chapter presents an updated critical
edition, based largely on that of Holmes-Parsons.

Holmes-Parsons. I have checked the readings of Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex
Sinaiticus (S) from published photographic plates and have corrected the collation of
Codex Venetus (V). To this material, I have added the evidence of as many of the more

p. 23

At relevant points, the edition includes the testimony of translations made directly from the OG; especially, the Latin, the Coptic, and the Syro-Hexaplar.17 In the absence of the Beuron edition,18 I have used DeBruyne’s edition of Old Latin19 and Vacarri’s edition of Jerome’s hexaplaric revision.20

19 Donatien De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes versions Iatines du Cantique des cantiques,” Revue Benedictine 38 (1926): 97-122.
20 Albertus Vaccari, Cantici canticorum Vetus Latina translatio a S. Hieronymo ad Grcecum textum hexaplarem emendata (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959).

p. 24
22 One weakness of a traditional critical apparatus, such as that of Holmes-Parsons, is that the
editor assumes a particular main text and tends to list only those witnesses that vary from it. The
witnesses that explicitly agree with that text are not listed. As a result, if we assume another main
text, we can no longer be positive which manuscripts supported the previous text. We can only infer
them. For that reason, I have attempted to make this apparatus more explicit than usual.
Another weakness is that editors tend to mark only the first instance of a variant that occurs
frequently; e.g., the reading dSeX^iSous for a8e\<{)i86s in V. A.s a result, one never knows whether
that variant actually occurs in any particular later case. The CATSS Variants system forces an editor
to be explicit for each case.

p. 25
One of the serious failings of the Holmes-Parsons edition is that it did not publish
the rubrics that accompany many of the Greek manuscripts of Song of Songs.24
Klostermann, who published the rubrics of two manuscripts,25 pointed out that they could
be of great help in distinguishing families of manuscripts.26 Unfortunately, most of the
rubrics remain unpublished and unstudied. For the purposes of the edition in this chapter,
the critical apparatus marks the places where published rubrics occur. Because these
rubrics deserve detailed study as interpretive devices, I present their contents in a separate
chapter.

p. 26
Of three major ways to divide the Song of Songs into verses,27 I have chosen to
follow the versification used in Rahlfs, which is almost identical to that in the Masoretic
Text. This versification is within one verse of those used by Swete and De Bruyne. Lines
B. Manuscripts. Abbreviations, and Siqla Used in This Edition28
1. Uncial Greek Manuscripts on Papyrus
p. 28
Uncial Greek Manuscripts on Parchment

p. 29

37 Constantinus Tischendorf, ed., Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus (St. Petersburg: Giesecke &
Devrienty, 1862) I have checked the readings of Codex Sinaiticus from the photographic plates
published by Kirsopp Lake and Helen Lake, edd., Codex Sinaiticus: Petropolitanus Friderico-
Augustanus Lipsiensis. The Old Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1922). I have also consulted
H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (Oxford: The University
Press, 1938).

38Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 29, 33. Regarding correction by Scribe D, see
“Note Regarding 1:17,” below.

Vaticanus
Alexandrinus
Ephraemi Rescriptus
Venetus

p. 31
3. Minuscule Greek Manuscripts on Parchment or Paper

p. 35
4. Coptic, Latin, and Syriac Manuscripts

p. 37
5. Other Ancient Texts and Text Traditions

p. 39
6. Church Writers

p. 46
7. Editions
8. Other Modern Collections, Series, and Works

p. 48
9. Critical Signs and Other Modifiers of Sigla

p. 51
C. Manuscript Groups

p. 54-70

p. 71-353
E. Critical Apparatus

p. 354-372
F. Notes on the Text
(a couple mention Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, correctors)

p. 373
Chapter 2
Observations on the Old Greek Text
A. Consistent Formal Equivalence with the Hebrew (“Literalness”)

p. 375
In all four aspects, the Song of Songs is among the most consistent (or mechanical)
of the OG translations in its representation of Hebrew. It is the most consistent OG

p. 384
D. Dating
Because evidence is exiguous, the date of the OG translation of Song of Song must
remain uncertain. OG Song gives the impression that it was translated fairly late, probably
in the first century bee or even the first century ce. This time-frame is consistent with the
little we can surmise about activity of Katye translations. This time-period is also
consistent with the absence of Greek fragments of Song of Songs at Qumran and with the
absence of explicit citations of Song of Songs in Philo of Alexandria, in Josephus, or in
Christian literature before Theophilus of Antioch20 and Tertullian.21

p. 389
G. Section Divisions: Numbers. Paraqraphi. Rubrics
OG Song of Songs is also relatively unmarked in regard to divisions of the text.
There are four kinds of division common in the manuscripts: enumerated major divisions,
enumerated minor divisions, paragraphi, and rubrics. Table 6 shows how these divisions
are distributed in several important witnesses.

p. 392-403 Vaticanus
38 Perhaps the eleventh-century hand of Clement the Monk, who took it upon himself to restore the text and leave his name on folios 238 and 264. Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction the Old Testament in Greek, revised by Richard Rusden Ottley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902; reprinted, New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1968), 351.

p. 393
κῶλα καὶ κόμματα 43 roughly, “clauses and phrases.” In his “Preface to Isaiah,” Jerome
introduces his use of cola et commata for his new translation of the prophets as follows:44

44 Jerome, “Prologus Hieronymi in Isaia Propheta,” in Robert Weber, ed., Biblia Sacra: Iuxta
Vulgatam Versionem, Editio Minor (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969, 1983), 1096.
Following “the ancient manuscripts,” Weber printed the text of the Vulgate per cola et commata (and
without explicit punctuation, except for the books in the Appendix). Weber, Biblia Sacra, xxii.

p. 398
The cola et commata make it easier for a reader to make sense of the text. They
also guide the reader’s perception away from other options that might have presented
themselves if the text were not divided.

p. 399
Chapter 3
Rubrics in Old Greek Song of Songs

p. 400
Readers of ancient Greek and Latin translations of Song of Songs did not have the
same advantage, at least with respect to gender. There were fewer grammatical cues to
gender in these languages (although many more than in English). As a result, Latin and
Greek manuscripts of the Song of Songs sometimes provide an indication of the voices in
a series of rubrics. The term “rubrics” is being used here in its most basic sense: words
written in red ink. These rubrics direct the reader’s interpretation of the text by assigning
the various lines of the book to different speakers, and sometimes by indicating the
addressees and other aspects of the situation assumed by the text. The rubrics are not part
of the text itself—the color of their ink makes them stand out clearly from the rest of the
text. Instead, they are actually an interpretation of the text, an interpretation that governs the
reader’s interpretation by providing a frame of reference. On the other hand, they have been
insinuated into the text and are very difficult to ignore. Before the reader has a chance to
come to an independent judgment, they have already shaped the process of reading—the
reader’s task of inferring speakers, situations, and meaning.
The following four Greek manuscripts have rubrics in Song of Songs: Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Venetus, and 161. There are surely other rubricated manuscripts of Song of
Songs that have not yet been published.2 The following manuscripts do not have rubrics:
Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, PHam, 952, 924, PBer, PDam, 147, and 502.

This chapter looks briefly at the rubrics in these four Greek manuscripts. The
Sinaiticus set is a special case, because we also have Latin witnesses to the same tradition.
Chapter Four will provide a fuller text, translation, and discussion of the Sinaiticus rubric-
tradition.
2 These four Greek manuscripts have been published. Erich Klostermann, “Eine alte
Rollenverteilung zum Hohenliede,” Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 19 (1899): 158,
implies that there are many Greek and Latin manuscripts of Song of Songs with rubrics. Regarding
Latin manuscripts of Song of Songs with rubrics, see below in section “F. Latin Rubrics.”

p. 401
B. Codex Alexandrinus
Table 8: The Rubrics in Codex Alexandrinus4

C. Codex 161
The rubrics in Codex 161 are similar to those of Codex Alexandrinus, and we may
usefully consider them next. Codex 161 is a fourteenth-century minuscule on paper.
Because there is no facsimile of this manuscript, I do not know how the rubrics are
arranged on the paper.
Table 9: The Rubrics in Codex 1616
These rubrics share much with the rubrics of Codex Alexandrinus. Both the
Alexandrinus rubrics and the 161 rubrics are fairly simple and are rather sparsely
distributed throughout the Song. Neither contain verbs, addressees, or attendant

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 404
D. Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth-century manuscript uncial codex.7 Codex Sinaiticus
also rubricates the “titles” of the Psalms and uses red ink for the Eusebian Canons in the
Gospels. Like Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus uses red ink in decorating colophons
to biblical books.8 Each rubric in the Song of Songs is indented (set in eisthesis) on one or
more lines before the text to which it applies. See Plate 1 at the end of this chapter.9
When the rubricator of Sinaiticus came to the space left for the rubric at 5:2.3, he
accidentally put in the rubric for 5:3 instead. Then he had to cancel the writing and fit in the
text for the correct rubric.

Continues through p. 406

10 From the facsimile: Kirsopp Lake and Helen Lake, ed., Codex Sinaiticus: Petropolitanus
Friderico-Augustanus Lipsiensis. The Old Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1922).

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 407
E. Codex Venetus

Codex Venetus is a parchment uncial codex of the eighth or ninth century.

p. 411
The frequent problems with itacism, solecism, or corruption make some of these
rubrics difficult to understand. It is certainly not clear that the scribe understood them.
Some of the inconsistencies in wording suggest that several scribes or editors with
differing styles played a part in their development.

In spite of the problems, one can see that these rubrics, like those of Sinaiticus
provide a narrative framework. Like Sinaiticus, they are frequent and wordy. They
attempt to spell out in some detail what is occurring in the narrative of the Song. Besides

There are enough agreements between the rubrics of Sinaiticus and those of
Venetus to make one wonder if they share a literary tradition. In particular, both interpret
1:4.6 as giving a name to the bride. Of course, this rubric tradition has gone its own way.
Its rubrics occasionally conflict with those of Sinaiticus, as at 7:1.1. It would be difficult to
reconstruct a common ancestor between Sinaiticus and Venetus.

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 412
F. Latin Rubrics

For purposes of comparison it is useful to see rubrics from Latin manuscripts.
Codex Amiatinus18 is a Vulgate manuscript written in the year 715/716. The Old Latin
manuscripts La 169 (ninth century) and its copy, La 170 (twelfth century) evidence the same
set of rubrics.19 The same tradition of rubrics also appears in other Vulgate manuscripts.20
The rubric-tradition of which Codex Amiatinus is the earliest witness is quite different
from those we have seen so far.

p. 413-415
Table 12: The Rubrics in Codex Amiatinus21

p. 416-421
G. Comparison of the Greek Rubrics

p. 422
H. About Rubrics

p. 423
I. Precedents for the Song of Songs Rubrics
p. 430
It appears that the Song of Songs rubrics have no clear precedents in Greek and Latin manuscript traditions of drama and dialogue. On the other hand, we have seen that the late antique Greco-Roman world had all of the individual elements that would be used in Song of Songs rubrics:
the use of red ink to mark a new section (in a variety of settings);
indenting or centering on a separate line (stage directions in papyri of Greek drama, title of a cited letter in documentary dialogues);
the practice of analyzing a drama or dialogue to determine its speakers and then using paragraphi and critical marks to make changes in speaker explicit (in drama and dialogue);
writing a name or role in full (in some documentary dialogues); and using occasional verbs, addressees, and circumstances (in documentary and narrative dialogue).
All a scribe had to do was to combine these elements and apply them together to the Song of Songs.

Third, it is possible that some one scribe invented the first set of rubrics for the
Song of Songs, and other scribes found it useful and adapted it to their own understanding
of the text. It would be amazing if this were the case, even more amazing if this innovation
in the Song of Songs even indirectly influenced later manuscripts of drama.

Regardless of how one may evaluate the possibilities, it turns out that the Codex
Sinaiticus is the earliest document we know to mark every speech of a dialogue by writing
the name or role of the speaker in full on a line by itself before the speech. It appears
possible that some scribe working on Song of Songs was the first person to write full

79 Andrieu, Le Dialogue Antique, 271-272.

p. 432
attributions in this manner. There were earlier forms of the rubrics, and their exact form is lost to us. The rubrics in Codex Alexandrinus probably represent a very early stage in the development of Song of Songs rubrics. In its rubrics, not every speech is attributed, but each attribution is unabbreviated and (in principle though not in practice) on a line by itself.80 I would expect the first Song of Songs rubrics to be similar.

J. The Rubrics as Dramatic Narrative

p. 436
Plate 1. Specimen from Codex Sinaiticus, Folio 61r
p. 437
Plate 2. Specimen from Codex Venetus Marcianus 474, Folio 92r
p. 438
Plate 3. Specimen from P. Oxy. 9.1174, Columns 4-5

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 439
Chapter 4
The Sinaiticus Rubric-Tradition of the Song of Songs
The previous chapter introduced the rubrics of the celebrated Codex Sinaiticus as
one of four sets of rubrics known from Old Greek manuscripts of the Song of Songs.
This chapter provides a text, translation, and closer examination of the rubric-tradition
represented by that fourth-century codex. It will argue for the possibility that this tradition
may preserve an early interpretation of the Song of Songs.

In 1926, Donatien de Bruyne called attention to a family of manuscripts that contained “a very remarkable” tradition of rubrics, to be found in both Latin and Greek manuscripts.1 De Bruyne described these rubrics as “the finest and the most nuanced of the interpretations of the Canticles conceived as a drama.”2 We will refer to this as the
Sinaiticus rubric-tradition, because the oldest manuscript to preserve it is Codex Sinaiticus. 'Donatien De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes versions latines du Cantique des cantiques,” Revue Benidictine 38 (1926): 118-122.

p. 505
D. The Development of the Tradition
An examination of the rubrics in section B makes it clear that there is a literary
relationship between the Old Latin and the Old Greek rubrics. Since neither set can be
accounted for as a simple variation on the other, we must assume that they had a common
ancestor. Uncertainty enters the picture when we try to determine what the common
ancestor looked like. De Bruyne considers the ancestor to have all of the elements that all
of its descendants have. In other words, he assumes that there was originally a full set of
rubrics and that both S and W-F represent defective transmissions of it. My alternative
proposal is that the ancestor is more likely to consist mostly of what S and W-F share. In
other words, I suggest that there was originally a smaller set of rubrics, and both S and W-
F are the result of different scribes independently supplementing the original set. This
second proposal best explains the different styles of rubrics found within a single
witness.84

p. 507
Instead, I suggest that most (and probably all) of the eighteen unparalleled Latin
rubrics are later developments in the Sinaiticus rubric-tradition. And once we admit that
there is development in this tradition, it becomes easy to find signs of development in the
paralleled rubrics also, whether Latin or Greek.

p. 508
Table 14: Hypothetical Proto-Sinaiticus Rubrics

p. 510-511
they may be earlier than Origen and perhaps earlier than ‘Aqiba. On the other hand, we
have no evidence that the rubrics were widespread. The rubrics in Codex Alexandrinus are
different. Song of Songs has no rubrics at all in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi
Rescriptus, P. Hamburg, P. Bodleian, the Damascus Palimpsest, P. London, or P. Berlin.88

Although Codex Sinaiticus was a relatively expensive product with a relatively standard
text, it remains possible that its rubrics represent an entirely eccentric tradition. Their use
Latin manuscripts suggest otherwise. Their appearance in Latin manuscripts after about
397 suggests that they may be relatively late, but there is no way to know.
Based on the speculation that this hypothetical form of the rubrics is the ancestor of
our extant Sinaiticus-tradition rubrics, we can sketch out the general lines along which the
earlier forms would have developed in order to arrive at the forms we actually have. As

p. 514
The Sinaiticus tradition of rubrics was not a static tradition. Nor was it a pristine set
of rubrics that was simply corrupted and adulterated with the passing of time. It was an
evolving tradition rather than an “authored” work. It was a living tradition that developed
and reflected the various needs of its readers over the span of at least a millennium. Like
most traditions, it was, to borrow a phrase from Song of Songs 4:15, “a well of water,
alive and coming down in a rush from Lebanon.”

 

[Steven Avery]

Rubrics in Codex Sinaiticus
Jay Curry Treat (2020)

Rubrics in Codex Sinaiticus

www.sas.upenn.edu

Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek "Song of Songs” and Its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses (1996)
Jay Curry Treat
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2990&context=edissertations

Abstract - p. vii
Chapter Four examines the rubrics of the Codex Sinaiticus in more detail. .... Redaction criticism is used to speculate about their development from a hypothetical Greek predecessor.

p. 432
The rubrics in Codex Alexandrinus probably represent a very early stage in the development of Song of Songs rubrics.

p. 439
In 1926, Donatien de Bruyne called attention to a family of manuscripts that contained “a very remarkable” tradition of rubrics, to be found in both Latin and Greek manuscripts.1 De Bruyne described these rubrics as “the finest and the most nuanced of the interpretations of the Canticles conceived as a drama.”2 We will refer to this as the Sinaiticus rubric-tradition, because the oldest manuscript to preserve it is Codex Sinaiticus.

De Bruyne found the same tradition of rubrics in a family of Latin manuscripts. The oldest and purest Latin representative is an eighth-century manuscript, Stuttgart 35. A thirteenth-century manuscript, Fribourg L 75 is another valuable representative of this tradition of rubrics. De Bruyne found the same tradition mixed with other traditions in six Italian, Anglo-Saxon, and French manuscripts dating from the ninth through the fourteenth century.3 All of these manuscripts are manuscripts of the Vulgate translation, but the rubrics do not fit as comfortably with the Vulgate as they do with an OL translation. For example, the rubric at Song of Songs 8:13 has the bride address the groom, as in OL texts (following the OG4), but the Vulgate text assumes that the words at 8:13 address a woman. The Latin rubrics give every appearance of having been translated to accompany an OL text — but which one?5

1 Donatien De Bruyne, “Les Anciennes versions latines du Cantique des cantiques,” Revue Benedictine 38 (1926): 118-122.

2 De Bruyne, “Anciennes versions,” 121.

3 De Bruyne, “Anciennes versions,” 118.

4 See “Note Regarding 8:13” in Chapter 1 above.

5 At Song of Songs 7:1.3, the rubric has plural addressees, as in OL (OG and MT), but the Vulgate has a single addressee. See De Bruyne, “Anciennes versions,” 121.

6 See De Bruyne, “Anciennes versions,” 118, 121-122.

7 Schulz-Fliigel, Vetus Latina, 34. Compare De Bruyne, “Anciennes versions,” 121-122, who did not recognize the hexaplaric nature of the OL fragments in Stuttgart 35. De Bruyne was working two decades before Vaccari successfully reconstructed the Hexaplaric Emendation.

8 Philo of Carpasia (PG 40:433B): “sis aypos, tout£<jtiv eis tou Koapov.”

9 Albertus Vaccari, Cantici canticorum: Vetus Latina translatio a S. Hieronymo ad Greecum textum hexaplarem emendata (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Lcttcratura, 1959), 13.

10 Regarding dSeXcJuSos and its translations, see “Note Regarding 1:12” in Chapter 1 above. Schulz-Fliigel, Vetus Latina, 12.

p. 508
Table 14: Hypothetical Proto-Sinaiticus Rubrics

p. 510
Codex Sinaiticus was a relatively expensive product with a relatively standard text, it remains possible that its rubrics represent an entirely eccentric tradition.

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM
Jay Curry Treat also helps on this issue of the sophistication of the formatting and rubrications in Sinaiticus, which does not fit with the 4th century date.

And on the issues he raises there is much needed follow-up. This article is a good jumping-off point for many problems with Sinaiticus 4th century dating. And kicking the can down to AD 700 simply does not work.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1865)
The Codex Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=RGktAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161

The arrangement will strike every one as elaborate and highly artificial, wrought out with care, and probably due to some eminent divine or expositor.

This from 1863 puts the 1865 information ... in better context.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
Benjamin Harris Cowper
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA10

 

[Steven Avery]

Look into
(1996) Matter, E. Ann - Song of Songs rubrics - 2nd century BLUNDER -
The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West - p. 098 -
https://books.google.com/books?id=vPC8m0_cz5wC&pg=PA98

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 443
This artificiality does not greatly affect the use we are making of it; namely, that it allows the reader to observe with some ease how the Sinaiticus rubric-tradition functions in interpreting early forms of the OL text.

Nothing comparable to Tischendorf s facsimile edition exists for the Old Latin manuscripts.16 The Old Latin text in this column is Vaccari’s edition of Jerome’s Hexaplaric Emendation of the Old Latin.17 I have underlined any Old Latin material in the text that is preserved in Stuttgart 35, and have presented in footnotes textual variants provided by the Old Latin of Stuttgart 35.18

The Old Latin rubrics are those found by DeBruyne in Stuttgart 35 and Fribourg L 75.19 I have presented all textual variants that De Bruyne supplies for the rubrics.

Lost Keys has two dual-column sections.

p. 445- 473

p. 474-501