Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Quire 93 - Folio 7 - where Hermas was mangled and folio was taken by both Uspensky and Tischendorf

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Default Quire 93 - Folio 7 - where Hermas was mangled and folio was taken by both Uspensky and Tischendorf

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

    Quire 93, folio 7

    Quire 93, folio 7 includes material from Russia (NLR) from Uspensky (discovered by Evgenya Eduardovna Granstrem in Uspensky manuscripts, published in 1959).

    A quite small fragment of parchment with Greek text was discovered in a manuscript of the collection of Bishop Porphyrius (RNB. F. ï. I. 83). On the basis of the paleographic characteristics, Evgenia Eduardovna Granstrem determined it as part of the Codex Sinaiticus and identified the text as the fragment of The Shepherd of Hermas6. The discoved fragment has been placed in the library's collection of Greek manuscripts at the shelfmark Greek 843.
    6 E. E. Granstrem. Greek Manuscripts in the State Public Library after M. Ye. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Vizantiiskii vremennik. 1959. Vol. 16. P. 220. No 2.

    http://nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/#6a
    Russian site.jpg

    As well as material from Tischendorf what went to Russia in 1859, and from there to England. (BL)

    Strongly supporting this as a place of tampering. The end parts of Hermas were found in the New Finds.

    One conjecture. The problems that Tischendorf had trying to take a consistent position about the Simonides Hermas (remember, he even retracted his earlier accusation as erroneous) made it safer and expedient not to include the later parts of Hermas. Thus, while Uspensky saw all of Hermas (his report on 1845 just wrote of the book as of Barnabas) much of it was thrown away.

    Much work may have been done in 1859, since by then it was clear that parts of Hermas could be a big embarrassment to the ancient Sinaiticus theory. Due to the Simonides and Tischendorf Hermas publications. However, it should be recognized that the Uspensky material, and an end-point of tampering and truncation, likely came out earlier.

    Shepherd of Hermas, 27:7 - 29:8 library: BL and NLR folio: 347 and Greek 843 = CSRU F6 scribe: B2
    Quire 93 Folio 7 recto ( Q93-7r )
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=93&side=r

    Shepherd of Hermas, 29:8 - 31:6 library: BL and NLR folio: 347b and Greek 843 = CSRU F6v
    Quire 93 Folio 7 recto ( Q93-7v )
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=93&side=v

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

    The next folio is missing, and then the next quire is missing, Q94. It had been thought that this was all, until the New Finds brought forth quire 95.

    And the mixture and overlap of Uspensky material with truncated Hermas is evidence that the ms. material that got to New Finds got there in the 1840s-1850s.(note: this is shown in Genesis 23 and 24.) The 1 Chronicles doubling is also worthy of note, due to the overlap, double section, where material from the New Finds is overlap text. Also related is where there was searching for Simonides acrostics and symbols.. e.g. Genesis 24.)

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

    Codex Sinaiticus and Old Manuscripts of Early Christian Writing: Traditions and Innovations in Modern Research - (The Fifth Zagrebin Readings, 2009 Conference, 2012 pub)
    The Electronic Transcription of Codex Sinaiticus
    Hugh Houghton
    http://eprints.bham.ac.uk/1488/1/Hou...Sinaiticus.pdf
    p. 38-49


    The allocation of page numbers also showed that the fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas (Quire 93 Folio 7; NLR, Greek 843) is part of the same folio as the final page held by the British Library. These digital images taken in libraries hundreds of miles apart were assembled as a composite page by Rosalind MacLachlan (see Figure 6). Much of the text on this folio appears as a correction, because a later hand (Corrector d) with a darker ink has added accents to the unaccented text of the first hand: the accented form is shown in the pop-up boxes. At the top of the third column of the verso, an editorial note is supplied in a mouseover box (indicated by the symbol §), explaining that as the initial letters of each line do not always match known forms of the Shepherd of Hermas the rest of the line has not been reconstructed.

    On the recto of this fragment (see Figure 7), there is an example of the paragraph symbol in the second line alongside the title of the third section. This is treated as a marginal annotation, and is therefore located within the opening line-break in order to display it within the margin. However, this coincides with the start of a new verse... p. 45-4
    6


    BL and LUL.jpg


    So not only was that a tampered folio, where the Hermas book was truncated, it also has more modern writing and ink. We will be looking (e.g. Jongkind, 2015 Perspectives) to see if anyone is willing to give a date to corrector D.

    =============================================
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-10-2018 at 08:00 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
  •