Song of Song rubrics akin to medieval Old Latin - Jay Curry Treat proto-Sinaiticus rubric proposal

Steven Avery

Administrator
Another evidence that Codex Sinaiticus was using medieval Latin sources that would be easily available at Mt. Athos, or could have been passed over to late Greek mss.

Quotes from Emanuel Tov, using Jay Curry Treat.


The form of Codex Sinaiticus is closely related to the rubrics in some early sources of the Old Latin, namely Stuttgart HB II 35 (eighth century) and Fribourg L 75 (thirteenth century)

The Septuagint in Codex Sinaiticus Compared with Other Sources p. 389-399
Emanuel Tov
https://books.google.com/books?id=oEOxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA398
http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/272.sinaiticus.pdf?v=1.0

Lost Keys (1996)
Jay Curry Treat
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.738.4768&rep=rep1&type=pdf - full text
https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1179/
Chapter 4 is "The Sinaiticus Rubric Tradition"

"these rubrics were added by the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus himself" - Emanuel Tov
Note: this may not be accurate to the paper from Treat

The rubrications in Song of Songs are so sophisticated and advanced that the scholars end up proposing that they were placed in ad hoc by the genius Sinaiticus scribes :) without an exemplar. A virtually impossible circularity, caused by assuming the 4th century date.

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

From the Treat paper

First, the two known mss. that are closest to Sinaiticus. p. 35 and also ref on p. 444

LaW
Latin manuscript, Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. IT,35 = Z in DEBRUYNE = W in Schulz-Fliigel (about 800 C.E.).53
530 De Bruyne, "Anciennes versions," 188; Schulz-Fliigel, Vetus Latina, 33-35.
W Z in DeBruyne Stuttgart 35 V g with traces of OL, ca. 800 ce

LaF
Latin manuscript, Fribourg, Bibliotheque Canton ale et Universitaire, L75 IT = F in DE BRUYNE (thirteenth century).55


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 004), 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?

.... The Greek text and rubrics have been taken directly from Tischendorfs edition of the Codex Sinaiticus.13 I have presented only those textual variants that can be attributed to the original hand or to the correctors of the original scriptorium.14 Each line is reproduced as it is found in the manuscript, which arranges the text per cola et commata, that is, according to sense-breaks.

....
In Codex Sinaiticus, of course, the rubrics have been written in red ink. The scribe also indented them. I have imitated this layout. In the absence of red ink, this edition presents the rubrics in bold characters, with a small space separating them from the previous line. p. 442

13 Constantinus Tischendorf, ed., Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus, Vol. III (St. Petersburg: Giesecke & Devrienty, 1862),61-64. This magnificent edition was published at the Czar's expense on the occasion of the one-thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire. The type was cast to resemble the fine uncial lettering of the codex. Tischendorfs accuracy is confirmed by the photographic reproduction: Kirsopp Lake and Helen Lake, ed., 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). Milne and Skeat examined the codex thoroughly after it had been transferred in its entirety to the British Museum.

14 Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, 18-51, argue persuasively (against Tischendorf and Scrivener) that the Song of Songs was lettered by scribe A, and then corrected by scribes A and D before the codex left the scriptorium. Two or three centuries later, a series of other correctors made a thoroughgoing revision based on another Old Greek text-tradition. For our present purposes, these later correctors may be ignored because they are irrelevant to the creation of the rubrics.
p. 439-440

1 Donatien De Bruyne, "Les Anciennes versions Iatines du Cantique des cantiques," Revue Benedictine 38 (1926): 1 18-122.
2 De Bruyne, "Anciennes versions," 121.
3 De Bruyne, "Anciennes versions," 118.

Starting on p. 445-501 the "Old Greek" Codex Sinaiticus is compared to the "Old Latin - Jerome's Hexaplaric Emendation". The similarities are astounding, and thus powerful evidence that the Latin rubrics were available for Sinaiticus.

"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." - p. 505

We are fortunate that several stages in the development have been preserved for us: an early Greek stage (Codex Sinaiticus), two later Latin developments (Stuttgart 35 and Fribourg L 75), and six Latin manuscripts in which this tradition was mixed with other traditions.. ... Finally, and here we are on the firmer ground of manuscript evidence, the Sinaiticus-type rubrics were mixed with rubrics of other traditions, such as the Amiatinus tradition. De Bruyne found such mixtures in six manuscripts.94

94-Apparently, no one has published these manuscripts. De Bruyne made a rapid examination of one of them in 1909, seventeen years before his article was published. De Bruyne, "Anciennes versions," 118. We may hope that they will be included in the new Beuron edition of the Old Latin, Schulz-Fliigel, Vetus Latina. p. 513

Map on p. 515
Bibliography on p. 516-530
Index of Subjects p. 531-535
Treat is forced to a hypothesis of a Proto-Sinaiticus tradition, without any evidence at all in Greek manuscripts.

I have not yet found in his paper a quote that matches up to Tov about the Sinaiticus scribe.
"these rubrics were added by the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus himself"

Note sent to Frans van Liere - 2020 - Academia
Email sent to Jay Curry Treat
- 2019 - also Academia to ask about Tov comment
 
Last edited:
Top