Sinaiticus Tobit - examination for Latin vorlage, Donaldson-style Latinisms, Mt. Athos ms source (ms 319 - Vatopedi 513)

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sinaiticus Tobit - examination for Latin vorlage, Donaldson-style Latinisms, Athos ms source

The Athos source could leave features along the lines of the homoeoteleutons that show a Claromontanus source.

Compared to most Tobits, Sinaiticus has 1700 extra words in ch. 3 and 6.


Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (2008)
Robert J. Littman
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PR19

Greek Manuscripts
There are two distinct Greek traditions of manuscripts for the book of Tobit, the family of the short version labeled G1, and the family of the long version, labeled GII. The short version consists of two uncial manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (B) of the 4th century CE and Codex Alexandrinus (a) of the 5th century CE, and their minuscule derivatives, including 990 and the uncial derivative Venetus (V). The long version consists of the uncial Codex Sinaiticus (s) of the 4th century CE and its allied manuscripts, particularly the important minuscule, MS 319, from the Monastery of Mt. Athos, Greece, which contains the lacuna in Tobit 4:7-19. The fragmentary 910 is also in this family. p. xix

The text of MS 319 (4:7-19) is based on a transcription of photos of the manuscript, graciously done for me by Dr. Luciano Bossina of the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen. p. xlvi

MS 319, closely related to Sinaiticus as the GII recension, is at the Vatopedi (Vatopaidi, Βατοπέδι or Βατοπαίδι) monastery on Athos, and would be easily available to Benedict.

MS 319 Athos, Vatopedi 513; written 1021 CE

only runs (today) from 3.6-6.16.


Just how many versions of Tobit are there? Part 01
http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2013/12/just-how-many-versions-of-tobit-are.html

Sinaiticus uniquely preserves most of G2 - albeit riddled with scribal errors - except for two lacunae (4:7-19b and 13:7-10b). Fortunately, an 11th century manuscript (Mount Athos, MS 319, aka Vatopedi 913) gives the G2 text from 3:6 to 6:16 (while giving the G1 text for the rest of the book), thereby filling one of the two lacunae.

Is The 'World's Oldest Bible' A Fake?
David W. Daniels - , pp. 234-235

Before the mid-20th century, the only other known Greek manuscript in the world that matched Sinaiticus in Tobit was Manuscript 319 from Mt. Athos, Greece, dated 1021 AD. 58 *

*58. See Tobit: the Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus, by Robert J. Littman (Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. xv-xvi. On top of all this, Littman there are not 2, but actually 3 different Greek versions of Tobit. That's not counting any other language.

Codex Sinaiticus Project - Tobit begins with 1844 CFA
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=9&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&verse=3l&zoomSlider=0

Quickly switches to the British Library section and ends:
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=38&side=r&zoomSlider=0

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

Additional documentary material in the private research forum

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.503/post-1000
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake?
By David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z3JGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT233
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXJGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA235

Before the mid-20th century, the only other known Greek manuscript in the world that matched Sinaiticus in Tobit was in
chapters 3-6, found in Manuscript 319 from Mt. Athos, Greece, dated 1021 AD. [61]

61. See Tobit: the Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus, by Robert J. Littman (Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. xv-xvi. On top of all this, according to Robert Littman there are not 2, but actually 3 different Greek versions of Tobit. That’s not counting any other language.

Littman
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PR15
1672625578159.png


So both the Shepherd of Hermas and Tobit in Sinaiticus have texts that pretty much only match up with manuscripts from Mt. Athos, Greece. And that’s the same place where a guy named Constantine Simonides claimed he created the Sinaiticus.

(61) See the Notes on Tobit 1:4 in the Oxford (RSV) and The New Oxford (NRSV) Annotated Bible. The NRSV New Oxford comment softens the blow.


1672623861606.png



1672623962319.png

1672624016401.png

1672624091190.png

1672624134130.png

Continues to page 240
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z3JGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT240
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Littmann
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PR7
(search 319)
https://www.academia.edu/26481039/R..._Codex_Sinaiticus_Septuagint_Commentary_2008_

p. vii
My thanks to Dr. Luciano Bossina, of the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gettingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen who on his own volition prepared for me a transcription of MS 319, based on photographs.


p. x
GII Greek recension based on S, MS 319 and 910

p. xv
MS 319 Athos, Βατοπαιδίου 513; written 1021 CE

p. xix
Manuscripts of the book of Tobit exist in nine languages.2
2 Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Sahidic, Armenian and Arabic. For a summary see Hanhart (1983: 8-20). Also Hanhart (1984). Two polygot versions have been published recently, Weeks (2004) and Wagner (2003). Weeks (2004) in his excellent and now indispensable edition, contains texts from the principal ancient and medieval traditions from most of the manuscripts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Wagner (2003) contains only the Greek and Latin, but includes MS 319, which is lacking in Weeks.

p. xx
The long version consists of the uncial Codex Sinaiticus (s) of the 4th century CE and its allied manuscripts, particularly the important minuscule, MS 319, from the Monastery of Mt. Athos, Greece, which contains the lacuna in Tobit 4:7-19. The fragmentary 910 is also in this family.

p. xlvi
The text of MS 319 (4:7-19) is based on a transcription of photos of the manuscript, graciously done for me by Dr. Luciano Bossina of the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen.


p. 12
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PA12
1672628444748.png


p. 13

p. 88
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PA88
It appears that the lacuna 4:7-18 has been lost from S, since it appears in MS 319, which belongs to the family of S. Also, it is present in the VL, which generally follows S. G1 also contains the missing verses, as does the Vulgate. The Aramaic text 4Q196 10 and





1672626923732.png

p. xx
1672627329810.png
p. xlvi
1672627075856.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

According to Fitzmyer, an eleventh century fragmentary miniscule MS 319, housed at Vatopedi monastery on Mt. Athos in Greece, contains GII from Tob 3:6-6:16.38 However, S/GII does not contain verses 7-18 of chap. 4; and for a
large part, MS 319 agrees with Gl, which also contains verses 7-18 of chap. 4.39 VG contains those verses, and thus agrees with Gl and the Qumran fragments on Tobit against GII.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Micah D. Kiel
https://books.google.com/books?id=GOYRBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9
1672663933179.png


Stuart Weeks
https://www.academia.edu/3080197/Restoring_the_Greek_Tobit_2013_
The modern consensus that the “Long” text of Tobit is earlier than the “Short” has brought about a paralysis in attempts to restore the Greek, with the very unsatisfactory text in Sinaiticus coming to serve as our de facto best effort. It is important to appreciate that the Long witnesses do not constitute a specific and coherent recension, capable of reconstruction in its own right, but are potentially miscellaneous texts, that happened individually to elude the two major revisions of the tradition. Original readings are preserved in both the revised and unrevised witnesses, and if we are to progress then we need to employ and evaluate all those witnesses. The paper ends with an attempt to reconstruct the original form of 4:7-19, which is lacking in Sinaiticus, as an illustration of the scope for such progress.

https://books.google.com/books?id=q9mvCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA99
1672709831532.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Which edition has the Vatopedi Greek?
3:6 to 6:16 compare with

Sinaiticus that has lacuna in 4:7 - 19b


Littman
https://books.google.com/books?id=M01vVo1dfUAC&pg=PA12

Possibly the Christian J. Wagner Polyglotte?
Yes but hard to get. Is Littman sufficient?

1. There is “depth” to the transmission: when the text is in error, there are sometimes adaptations to the error, as in 4.19, where a long omission that rendered the text unintelligible has led a copyist to change αὐτὸς to αὐτοῖς and δίδωσιν to δώσει so that what is left of the original verse can now serve as a continuation of 4:6. It is difficult to see how this would have happened if not in two or more stages.

printed editions like Sabatier and Blanchini,

4. Quite a lot of the original Semitic version from which the Greek translation was made is preserved in texts from Qumran, not known before the 1950s. The Greek version in Sinaiticus generally corresponds to this version, and sometimes corresponds even where no other Greek or Latin texts do, e.g. at 6.133, where την νυκτα ταυτην is found in no other Greek text, including ms. 319, and in no Latin or Syriac text, but does correspond to ליליא דן in 4Q197. (Muenster?)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
BCHF
Facebook
PBF


This is Tobit

more diverse list at
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-coslinianus-superb-contacts.2832/#post-11702

1672846059426.png


Luciano Bossina - ** Tobit - academia.edu - (transcribed Vatopedi 319 for Littman)
https://unipd.academia.edu/LucianoBossina
https://www.academia.edu/Messages?atid=23486665

Mark Bredin

Jeremy Corley

Damasdi - Tobit - Academia.edu

David W. Daniels - Tobit

Alexander Di Lella- NETS English - Tobit

Susan Doherty

Robert Hanhart (b. 1925) - Tobit

Juan Hernandez

Dirk Jongkind

Micah D. Kiel

Robert J. Littman - Tobit - Academia.edu - use littman@hawaii.edu

Tobias Nicklas - use email
https://brill.com/view/journals/jsj/40/3/article-p432_33.xml?language=en

Francis M. Macatangay - Tobit Academia

Emmanuel Nshimbi

Benedict Otzen

Patrick

Albert Pietersma

Chris Pinto

Charles van der Poole

James Snapp

Christian J. Wagner

Stuart Weeks - Tobit Academia.edu
Gathercole Stuckenbruck

Wieland Willker

Michal Wojciechowski

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

Sabatier

Blanchini


Tischendorf & Charles Short

James Rendel Harris

Swete

Kenyon

David Capell Simpson

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1920-2016)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tischendorf on Tobit and Zosima
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q&f=false

“ Trinity College, Cambridge, Jan. 17, 1863. W. A. Wkight.
“P.S.—I add a translation of part of Tischendorf’s letter to the Altgemeine Zeitung of 22nd Dec., 1862, in reference to the claim put forward by Simonides:—
‘“The splendid four-volume edition of the MS. just published .... will convince every sceptic who is capable of forming a conclusion on the question that Simonides could have selected no more unfortunate object for his daring inventions. He professes to have taken a Moscow edition of the Bible as the groundwork of comparison with the MSS. of Mount Athos. But, in the New Testament alone, the Sinaitic text differs in many thousand places from all the Moscow editions, and from all MSS. written in the last thousand years; while it stands in some instances alone, and in others has for its companions only the Vatican and Cambridge MSS., and contains many readings which must have appeared gross heresies in a copy prepared for the orthodox Czar. But in the Old Testment, for example, the text of Tobit and Judith is of an entirely different recension, which is still preserved, particularly in old Latin and old Syriac documents. How were these formed from the Moscow edition, or how were they introduced into it?’ ”

Tischendorf (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uuFUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA13

1672709479716.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit - (2011)
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110255355.7/pdf
more
https://books.google.com/books?id=7zDLjpuzVeoC&pg=PA4
more text
https://vdoc.pub/documents/the-wisdom-instructions-in-the-book-of-tobit-6hj63uamqd40

1672795466389.png


1672809331208.png

2.1.3

A Case of Scribal Error in Transmission

The absence of Tob 4:7-19b in Sinaiticus can be attributed not to redactional intentions but to accident in transmission. That Sinaiticus may have had a similarly detailed collection of instructions can be partly demonstrated by MS 319. This eleventh century minuscule, which also belongs to the GII family of recensions, contains the verses of Tob 4:719b omitted in Sinaiticus. The Vetus Latina, which closely follows Sinaiticus, also contains these missing verses.19 The Hebrew Qumran fragment 4Q200, which also bears family resemblance to the long Greek version, witnesses likewise to the presence of some lost verses, namely Tob 4:3-9.
51

Further, the textual witness of G I reports the presence of a long collection of exhortations. If this textual tradition of Tobit is indeed an abridgement of the long Greek version, it is odd that the collection was not subjected to scribal scissors. In other words, MS 319 may in fact reflect, or even preserve, the intact state of the Greek long text before the said verses accidentally fell away from the manuscript. All of this may well conspire to indicate that the omission of Tob 4:7-19 in the Sinaiticus could have been simply due to a copying error or “scribal carelessness.”20 What might the error have been? In a possible instance of homoioteleuton, it is likely that the copyist got confused and his eyes mistakenly jumped from one verse to another, since euvodwqh,sontai is in Tob 4:6 and the same verb euvodwqw/sin is in Tob 4:19.21 In the same way, the scribe could have simply associated the objective fact stated in kai. pa/sin toi/j poiou/sin th.n dikaiosu,nhn in Tob 4:6 with the subjective reason for such act expressed in dw,sei ku,rioj auvtoi/j boulh.n avgaqh,n in verse 19.22 Such may explain why vv. 7-19 dropped and disappeared from the Sinaiticus text. Looking at Tob 4:3-19, 21 in both GI and GII recensions, one notices that, on the whole, the collection of instructions is similar. The organization of the sayings in both recensions are not entirely or remarkably different. In fact, the entirety of Tobit’s counsels in G I are found in GII via MS 319 with the sole exception of the instruction on

20 Cf. WEEKS/GATHERCOLE/STUCKENBROOK, The Book of Tobit, 13. According to Hanhart, the lacunae in the Sinaiticus seem to be a copying error, a “Fehler eines Abschreibers,” which can be filled and consequently restored using the Old Latin and MS 319. HANHART, Text und Textgeschichte, n.2, 17. Littman comments that “in general MS 319 omits iota subscripts, and has a number of incorrect accents when h stands alone. Because of iotaization, epsilon iota is often rendered with an iota. It is uncertain why S neglected to copy this section.’ LITTMAN, Tobit, 89. See also FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 169-178. Interestingly, Schüngel-Straumann uses GI rather than MS 319 to translate Tobit 4 in her commentary. SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Tobit, 97. For a critical evaluation of this commentary, cf. SCHMITT, Ein Kommentar zum Buch Tobit, 28-32. 21 Cf. LITTMAN, Tobit, 89. The author hastens to add that it is possible that Tob 4:7-19 did not originally belong to the narrative, having been “simply inserted since it contained additional maxims on righteousness.” To the mind of this writer, however, there are good reasons as mentioned above that decrease the likelihood of such possibility. 22 Cf. SIMPSON, The Book of Tobit, 1:211. The author also entertains the possibility of a lost mss page.

31 A detailed discussion of the various mss and textual traditions of Tobit falls beyond the scope of the study. Fitzmyer provides a readable and easy to follow discussion of the scholarship on the textual history of Tobit in his commentary. FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 3-17. Also helpful are accounts in SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People, 3:227-230; MOORE, Tobit, 53-64; OTZEN, Tobit and Judith, 60-65; LITTMAN, Tobit, xixxxv; ZAPPELLA, Tobit, 26-29. For recent treatments, see the monographs of TOLONI, L’originale del libro di Tobia and HALLERMAYER, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit. 32 FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL), 5. 33 Cf. NICKLAS/WAGNER, Thesen zur textlichen Vielfalt im Tobitbuch, 141-153. The authors have compared the papyrus fragment 910, GI and GII of Tob 2:2-5, 8 and concluded that few of the Greek mss have special types of readings. For further discussions of GIII, cf. WEEKS, Some Neglected Texts of Tobit, 12-42. 34 Cf. RABENAU, Studien zum Buch Tobit, 7: “Die generelle Linie des Bearbeiters liegt in einer Textkürzung.“ Cf. also THOMAS, The Greek Text of Tobit, 468-469.

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

2.1.3
A Case of Scribal Error in Transmission
The absence of Tob 4:7-19b in Sinaiticus can be attributed not to redactional intentions but to accident in transmission. That Sinaiticus may have had a similarly detailed collection of instructions can be partly demonstrated by MS 319. This eleventh century minuscule, which also belongs to the GII family of recensions, contains the verses of Tob 4:719b omitted in Sinaiticus. The Vetus Latina, which closely follows Sinaiticus, also contains these missing verses.19 The Hebrew Qumran fragment 4Q200, which also bears family resemblance to the long Greek version, witnesses likewise to the presence of some lost verses, namely Tob 4:3-9.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tobit
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...style-latinisms-athos-ms-source.501/#post-997

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-athos-vatopedi-913-song-of-songs-tobit.2883/

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...first-hand-letters-are-square-not-round.2889/

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...fend-authenticity-of-sinaiticus.468/#post-953

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

Sinaiticus Tobit - examination for Latin vorlage, Donaldson-style Latinisms, Mt. Athos ms source (ms 319 - Vatopedi 513)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...onaldson-style-latinisms-athos-ms-source.501/

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

Just how many versions of Tobit are there? Part 01
http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2013/12/just-how-many-versions-of-tobit-are.html
Just how many versions of Tobit are there? Part 02
https://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2013/12/just-how-many-versions-of-tobit-are_16.html

======

The Book of Tobit and its Recensions - Patrick
https://www.thepostil.com/the-book-of-tobit-and-its-recensions/

The Book of Tobit and its Recensions - Part 02 - Patrick
https://www.thepostil.com/the-book-of-tobit-and-its-recensions-part-2/

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

some have error of 913 not 513

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

Aside from G1, Sinaiticus, and the Vulgate, people before the mid-20th century were aware of a number of other versions of the book in Hebrew (and one in Aramaic), although all of these were late, medieval texts that are deritative of the Greek or the Vulgate versions.

  1. The Münster text (HM), first published in 1516 in Constantinople, then reprinted in Basel by Sebastian Münster in 1542. Said to be a 5th century version, this text is generally based on G2. This version was reproduced in the London Polyglot.
  2. The Fagius text (HF), said to date from the 12th century and first published in 1519 (reprinted by Paul Fagius in 1542). This version is also found in the 1657 London Polyglot. This text is usually judged to be a paraphrastic translation or a free recasting of a Greek text like G1 made by a medieval Jew from Western Europe. This version is noted for its introduction of OT phraseology into the text. The Haydock Commentary often alludes to this version along with the other ones named here.
  3. Gaster's text (HG), another translation derived from from a 15th century Midrash on the Pentateuch that condenses and greatly abbreviates the narrative found in the medieval Aramaic text, with which it otherwise largely agrees. The narrative in 1:1-3:6 is again in the third person; much of the dialogue and the prayers are eliminated. The text lays a huge emphasis on tithing, a reason why it was introduced into the pentateuchal midrash.
  4. Cairo Genizah T-S A 45.25, 45.26 and 45.29 (Cambridge University Library): Fragmentary texts dating from the 13th-14th century. The earliest of these, 45.26 is of the same recension as the 1516 Constantinople text, while the latter two agree with Fagius' versio
============================

Fortunately, an 11th century manuscript (Mount Athos, MS 319, aka Vatopedi 513) gives the G2 text from 3:6 to 6:16 (while giving the G1 text for the rest of the book), thereby filling one of the two lacunae

From the blog on Tobit, sent correction.
 
Last edited:
Top