ms 1739 at Mt. Athos used for Sinaiticus? - colophon, 1 Corinthians 15:54 omission - Hixson Sinaiticus speculation

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Codex von der Goltz - Athos, Laura 184 [B'64] (Greg. 1739; von Soden a78), Acts, Catholic epistles, Paul / K. Lake,

Eduard von der Goltz, Eine Textkritische des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts (1899)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_1739
A colophon indicates that while copying the Pauline epistles, the scribe followed a manuscript that contained text edited by Origen.[3]

In 1 Corinthians 15:54, along with Codex Sinaiticus, 614, 629, and 1877, the text lacks (although it has been added to the margin) το φθαρτον τουτο ενδυσηται αφθαρσιαν και (This corruptible shall put on incorruption). Other manuscripts that lack this phrase are 𝔓46, 088, 0121a, 0243, 1175, 1852, 1912, and 2200.[14]

In a marginal note to the text of 1 John 5:6, a corrector added the reading δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (through water and blood and spirit) as found in the following: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, 104, 424c, 614, 2412, 2495, ℓ 598m, syrh, copsa, copbo, Origen.[15][n 2] Bart D. Ehrman says this reading is an Orthodox corrupt reading.[16]

The manuscript was copied by a monk named Ephraim. He copied 1739 from an uncial exemplar from the 4th century. It was discovered by E. von der Goltz in 1897 at Mount Athos and is usually known by his name.[17] A collation was made by Morton S. Enslin (in Kirsopp Lake Six Collations).[18]

The codex is housed at the Great Lavra (B 184), in Athos.[1][19]
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
1686873528803.png
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Elijah Hixson
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Ner...rodGSZ2hOW4Y9vVnnOpYsVmvO1Mea9HPX&__tn__=R]-R

Now let's assume that these guys are absolutely right because "there's no telling what books were floating around on Mt. Athos" which is their excuse for why the first part of John has a "Western" text. And let's assume that Sinaiticus IS a forgery, originally intended as a replica, made by a team of calligraphers who learned their calligraphy from the ancient manuscripts on Mt. Athos that we never found out about. Clearly, some of these are Bible manuscripts, because according to this theory, there had to be a "western" text of John there for them to copy into Sinaiticus.
If that's the case, then...
Sinaiticus is a genuine hand-written New Testament manuscript copied (albeit in the 19th century) from genuine, ancient, New Testament manuscripts, which is in exactly the same boat as 1739, (though a bit further removed from its source).
We absolutely use 1739 in our modern Greek New Testaments, and I think that in Paul, 1739 might even "rank" higher than Sinaiticus itself, so in that case, why should we throw out Sinaiticus even if it *is* a 19th-century copy of something much more ancient?


Elijah Hixson

Last time I had talked to Steven Avery, it seemed to have gone full-circle. He seemed to say that Sinaiticus was a team effort done by a group of trained calligraphers who used ancient parchment on Mt. Athos and ancient books to copy from (including a "western" manuscript of John, to explain the block-mixture in Sinaiticus). Well, last I heard, text critics called that a "Greek New Testament manuscript", and we used those to determine the original text, even if they are late copies of early manuscripts (like 1739).
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
James Hardy Ropes

An Important New Testament Manuscript on JSTOR

James Hardy Ropes, An Important New Testament Manuscript, The Biblical World, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Feb., 1903), pp. 140-145
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org
This interesting manuscript originally contained
fifteen pages of introductory matter at the beginning, and the Apoca-
lypse at the end. These have been removed, perhaps by the same
hand which has cut away the subscription to Acts and erased many of
the hundreds of scholia with which the manuscript was once furnished.
Much has been left, however, and the character of the manuscript is
revealed especiallj* by the following note, which stands at the begin-
ning of the Pauline epistles:

1686876443331.png

Be it known that the fourteen epistles of the apostle were written from
a very ancient copy, which we have sufficient reason to believe was prepared
(oC xtipav IXdpofuv briTertxryfUpov) from the extant Tomoi or Homilies of
Origen on the apostle; for we have found that it agrees with the text passages
(faroU) which he cites in his interpretations either of the apostle or
of other Scripture. At the texts, therefore, in which the man (6 avftp) departs
from (Vapa\X<£rr«) the now current apostolic readings, wc have set the so-called
a*r\i)[>] in the outer margin, in order that it may not be supposed that this
copy of the apostle is wrong by way either of addition or of defect. But,
having copied the epistle to the Romans from the Tomoi upon it which are
preserved, we have not made use of the Jis-Ai}, and the epistle follows.

1686876617948.png

1686876662351.png
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Codex Marchalianus,

Biblical World (1903)
James Hardy Ropes
https://books.google.com/books?id=zIXNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA142

In one of the most important manuscripts of the Old Testament, the Codex Marchalianus, written in Egypt in the sixth century, a nearly contemporary hand has added copious hexaplaric notes, and a statement that the manuscript from which they are derived had been compared with the exegetical Tomoi of Origen. The fact of the comparison is attested by the present condition of the Marchalianus itself, which contains in the margin the numbers of Origen’s Tomoi, exactly as does our manuscript at Mount Athos. In this it agrees with the kindred manuscript of the prophets, Codex Cryptoferratensis. Another Old Testament manuscript important for our purpose is no other than the Codex Sinaiticus, the third corrector of which (אc) declares that he has corrected in accordance with the Codex corrected by the hand of Pamphilus, which was itself copied and corrected from the Hexapla of Origen. This third corrector of Codex א worked in the New Testament as well as in the Old, and his readings there are akin to the text of Codex Hpaul, which has a colophon, doubtless taken from its exemplar, explaining that the text had been corrected by the manuscript written by Pamphilus. Morover, certain minuscule codices have similar notes asserting some relation to the library at Caesarea. It thus appears that this manuscript at Mount Athos is one of the most noteworthy of a class of New Testament manuscripts, the text of which goes back in greater or less measure to the Codex of Pamphilus at Caesarea. It needs but to call to mind the fact that Origen was the Christian teacher whom Pamphilus most revered, that the latter sought industriously to collect his writings, that the Hexapla and Tetrapla themselves were preserved in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and that Origen’s text of the LXX drawn from them was published, according to Jerome, by Pamphilus and Eusebius, to see that the relation of this group to Origen as well as Pamphilus is only what ought to be expected. The determination of precisely what the work of Pamphilus was, and of the relation to it of the several existing manuscripts, is the task for which
the discovery of this manuscript provides new means.

1687473666987.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top