Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: the 1600s editions of Barnabas and Gaspard c. 1765 in Athos - Gaspareos

  1. Default the 1600s editions of Barnabas and Gaspard c. 1765 in Athos - Gaspareos

    Gaspareos is mentioned on two other PBFs, since it is a major reference source used for the Simonides Barnabas.

    Comparisons also needed with Greek vorlgage .. especially Codex Hierosolymitanus

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

    We do not know if there is a known edition of Gaspard of Barnabas, however, the circumstantial evidence is that he did a manuscript or edition that was available at Mt. Athos, c. 1840.

    Jean-Baptiste-Gaspard d'Ansse de Villoison (1750-1805)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-B...e_de_Villoison

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

    Nicolas-Hugues Menardus (1585-1644)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Menardus

    Luc d'Archery (1609-1685)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_d%27Achery

    Isaac Vossius (1618-1689)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius

    Stephani Le Moyne (1624-1689)
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Étienne_Le_Moine

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

    A very fine list of early Barnabas editions:

    Lexicon bibliographicum: sive Index editionum et interpretationum scriptorum graecorum tum sacrorum tum profanorum, Volume 1 (1832)
    Samuel Friedrich Wilhelm Hoffmann
    https://books.google.com/books?id=9QERAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA434

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

    The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2
    https://books.google.com/books?id=m7B23xenMX4C&pg=PA11

    James Ussher was the first to produce a modem edition of die epistle (in Latin), but it was destroyed by a fire at Oxford in 1644, before it could be published. The editio princeps (Latin) was produced by Dom Hugo Ménard and published after his death by Luc d’Archery (.... TOT ATIOT BAPNABA AIIOSTOAOT EIIIiTOAH KAHOAIKH. Sancti Bamabae Apostoli [ut fertur] Epistola Catholica. Paris, 1645).
    Notice that Robert Kraft puts special emphasize on Greek components of the 1600s editions, while other summaries seem to see them as simply Latin.

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

    Sinaiticus.net
    The Smoking Gun
    http://www.sinaiticus.net/The%20Smoking%20Gun.html

    It turns out that the text of the Epistle of Barnabas in Sinaiticus is practically identical to the text published by Simonides, when corrected by the footnotes he included from the text published by Gaspareos.


    The Barnabas text in Sinaiticus also contains little correction notes all through the text. When the main text is corrected with these notes it matches the main text that Simonides published!

    So it is clear that the two main texts are linked by a set of published corrections! Simonides possessed the main text AND the corrections to create the Barnabas text of Sinaiticus.
    THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: ITS QUOTATIONS AND THEIR SOURCES (1981)
    by Robert Alan Kraft
    http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/barndiss01.htm

    The complete text of Barn 1-21 is preserved only in two Greek MSS, Sinaiticus (=Barn\S/) and Constantinopolitanus (or Hierosolymitanus, =Barn\H/), which have been brought to light within the past century. Several MSS of Barn 5:7b-21:9 (=Barn\G/) also are known, and an old Latin version (=Barn\L/) of chapters 1-17 in a somewhat shorter form that in the Greek MSS (=Barn\Gk/). Thus a critical Greek text of the entire Epistle has been possible only since 1862. Before discussing the textual witnesses in greater detail, we will list chronologically the publications which are most relevant: 1642 Ussher, J. apud Backhouse, J.H. The Editio Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas by Archbishop Ussher, as printed at Oxford A.D. 1642, {@@RAK addition: and preserved in an imperfect form in the Bodelian Library; with a dissertation on the literary history of that edition. } ... [1883] (Ussher used Barn\L/ and a MS like Barn\G/{@@RAK addition: G\c(b)/}; while the ed was still in the press, a fire destroyed it. {@@RAK addition: Oxford: @@Clarendon Press, 1883}
    These next two editions could have been used in Mt. Athos, although our greatest interest is Gaspareos. We need to check the various names in the Simonides Barnabas.

    1645 Menard, H. (ed of Barn prepared c.1638 from Barn\L/ and some MSS of Barn\G/ [bcn ?] and published posthumously by L. D'Archery). 1646 Voss, I. (ed of Barn with both Greek and Latin texts). 1685 LeMoyne, S. Varia sacra I (claims to use a newly discovered Greek MS, and does indeed differ in minutiae from known MSS of G).
    Some additional 1600s info, before 1850, less consequential:

    As early as 1640, Ussher planned & was having printed his ed. of Polycarp & Ign.; later, after meeting Voss, they decided to include Barn. Ussher's original ed. bore the date 1643, Ignatii, Polycarpi et Barnabae Epistolae atque martyria. the pages of Barn had already been printed in 1642 and were awaiting appearance in the finished vol. Apparently it was delayed (if the fire was in Autumn 1644), and in 1644 after the fire the material from Polycarpi et Ignatii Epistolae was issued separately (but did not appear until 1645, probably in March). Pp 1-239 of the "1643" ed. are virtually identical with "1644" ed. (Llewellyn [1646!] @@?/>) The fire took place in 1643 (Fell & later add) or 1644 (Oct 6, apud Backhouse p viii n. 2 etc) Pp. 239-270 [p 301 = Barn 21:4] (+?) = the Barnabas (& Martyria) portion of the orig. ed, alone was destroyed (div. 5) in the "1644" ed, pp 239-242 = Errata 241-247 = Praemonitis to Barn (Fell reproduces pp. 241-246 of this) Fell knew at least pp 249, 50, 54, 55, 57, 65, and 70 (cites 13 variants) in 1648, Ussher published the Martyria in his Appendix Ignatia, but he never did publish Barn & Voss' notes to it, although there are indications that he had planned to do so. Possibly this is because Voss' ed. of them had already appeared by 1648. The reports that the "copy" (ms?) as well as the printed pages of Barn were destroyed are probably erroneous. In any event, Uss used transcripts of L (via Voss via Salmas via Cordes) and of one of the mss of family G (via Voss via Salmas via Schott), not any actual mss. }
    The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (1994)
    James Carleton Paget
    http://books.google.com/books?id=LXMfGMGKGK4C&pg=PA254

    viii. The Latin Translation
    Menard’s discovery of the Latin translation of Barn in the tenth-century Codex Corbeiensis in 1638 marks an important point in the history of the study of the epistle. The translation probably dates from the late second/early third century. 344 Its precise significance for the question we are addressing here is difficult to define. The fact that in the Codex it appears next to the Epistle of James is not important, for both manuscripts appear to be the work of different scribes, an observation which excludes the possibility that the works were regarded

    144 Heer, Versio, p.lix, argues that the translation predates Tertullian and Cyprian. The most recent commentator, Scorza-Barcellona, ascribes it to the second or third century.
    Sancti Barnabae Apostoli (ut fertur) epistola catholica. Ab antiquis olim Ecclesiae Patribus, sub eiusdem nomine laudata & usurpata. Hanc primum e tenebris eruit, notisque & observationibus illustravit R. P. Hugo Menardus,... Opus posthumum (1645)
    https://books.google.com/books/about...d=WJB-NdwZEi8C


    This is the 1685 edition of Le Moyne (which may have been used, directly or indirectly, to give the text of Sinaiticus and the Simonides Barnabas.)

    Varia sacra seu sylloge variorum opusculorum graecorum ad rem ecclesiasticam spectantium versionibus partim additis et notis illustrata. (l. Ed.) (1685)
    Stephanus Le Moyne
    https://books.google.com/books?id=gOdJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP7


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

    Strangely, when Corbeiensis is mentioned with Barnabas, the 1638-1645 history is often omitted, possibly because of the emphasis on the New Testament Epistle of James

    Kenyon
    ff. Codex Corbelensis, formerly at Corbey, now (like ff1) at St Petersburg: probably of the tenth century. Contains the Epistle of James, together with the unique Latin text of the Epistle of Barnabas, and two other treatises. Published by Martianay (1695) with ff1; subsequently by Sabatier and Belsheim, and finally by Wordsworth (Studia Biblica, i. 1885). The text is predominantly Old Latin, but has many agreements with the Vulgate, and therefore probably represents a comparatively late stage in the development of the Old Latin text. The Epistle of James does not seem to have been recognised in the Latin Church before about the end of the fourth century, and it will be observed that in this MS. it is associated with uncanonical writers.

    John Wordsworth,
    The Corbey St. James (ff), and its relation to other Latin versions, and to the original language of the Epistle, Studia Biblica (Oxford 1885), pp. 113–150.
    https://archive.org/stream/studiabib...e/112/mode/2up

    If Barnabas is in this manuscript, why is it not mentioned, e.g. in Wikipedia

    Codex Corbeiensis I
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Corbeiensis_I
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-01-2019 at 11:36 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •