Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Hort placing Vaticanus (and Sinaiticus) as written in Rome

  1. Default Hort placing Vaticanus (and Sinaiticus) as written in Rome

    This is a continuation of:

    Vaticanus linguistics, provenance and production - Bill Cooper linguistics note
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=273

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

    Why would Vaticanus have Latin word forms? One obvious possibility is that there was a Latin exemplar in the source material. Another possibility is that it was written later than 4th century. Yet either of those possibilities would make Vaticanus simply a minor manuscript in textual circles.

    Hort tried to fudge the problem. The Rome place of writing proposed by Hort is today rejected, yet the Latin word forms remains unexplained.

    Vaticanus - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

    The provenance and early history of the codex is uncertain;[3] Rome (Hort), southern Italy, Alexandria (Kenyon,
    [62] Burkitt[63]), and Caesarea (T. C. Skeat) have been suggested as the origin. Hort's argument for Rome rests mainly on certain spellings of proper names, such as Ισακ and Ιστραηλ, which show a Western or Latin influence. A second argument is that the chapter division of Acts, similar to that of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is not found in any other Greek manuscript, but is present in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[64] Robinson counters the argument by suggesting that this system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by Jerome himself, as a result of his studies at Caesarea.[65] According to Hort, it was copied from a manuscript whose line length was 12–14 letters per line, because where the Codex Vaticanus's scribe made large omissions, they were typically 12–14 letters long.[66]

    3 Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.

    62. Frederic G. Kenyon, "Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament", London, 1912. p. 88.
    63. F. C. Burkitt, 'Texts and Studies", p. VIII-IX.
    64. Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Bros.. 1882; reprint, Peabody. Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988). pp. 264-267.
    65. Robinson, Euthaliana, pp. 42, 101.
    66. Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Bros.. 1882; reprint, Peabody. Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988). pp. 233-234.
    Even the dismissal by Robinson looks unusual. If Jerome was influenced by manuscripts in Caesarea to place in the Acts chapter headings, and in the modern theory two major uncials before Jerome had the chapter headings, then why did those headings virtually disappear in the Greek manuscript line?

    In this thread we plan, at the very least, to look at some of these sources. Our focus is not on the debate between Alexandria and Caesarea for these manuscripts, it is much more simple:

    1) What happened to the west, probably Rome, identification as the probable place of authorship?
    2) And what happened to the reasons given by Hort for this identification?

    If we run into other good explanations of the phenomenon, we will share what we find. And why did Hort include Sinaitiicus with Vaticanus? Was it simply the Acts headings. Remember, James Donaldson, looking at Hermas and Barnabas, emphasized that Sinaiticus has Latin forms that are inconsistent with a 4th century Greek ms. Hort did not dispute his scholarship, he simply opined that Donaldson "proved too much".

    We may also look at the homoeoteleuton explanation of Hort. e.g. Where are the specific points where Hort there was an omission based on homoeoteleuton. And, where are spots where those who support a pure traditional text might find the 12-14 character homoeoteleuton spots. We can also document some of the discussions to date on the overwriting and washing of the ms. We can also look at the homoeoteleuton question in Sinaiticus.

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

    For Hort's section we can use:

    The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised (1881)
    B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
    https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233
    https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA265

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

    Robinson and Kenyon are online.


    Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius, Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, and the Armenian Version (1895)
    Joseph Armitage Robinson
    https://books.google.com/books?id=LtRMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1
    The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus section is p. 36-43, also p. 101

    Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1901, 1912 second edition)
    Frederic George Kenyon
    https://archive.org/stream/handbooktotextua00keny#page/82/mode/2up
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Y18wAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA82
    "Hort inclines to Rome"


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


    Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B
    http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2...uton-codb.html

    homoioteleuton: Vaticanus Singulars - Steven Avery's Research
    (server error at the moment)

    Nazaroo index
    http://bibliobloglibrary.com/?blog=210

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

    Post on Sept 5, 2015

    [TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5980

    From our 2011 discussion:

    [TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/4066

    And also discussed nicely by Ben:

    Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B
    Mr. Scrivener - January 3, 2011
    http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2...uton-codb.html

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

    The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised by (1881)
    B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
    http://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233

    When the singular readings of B are examined ... the scribe ... occasionally omits necessary portions of text because his eye returned to the exemplar at the wrong place. As the longer portions of text so omitted consist usually either of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was doubtless written in lines of this length.

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


    QUESTIONS DU JOUR

    Did Hort ever point to any specific omissions in Vaticanus that he thought were not authentic?
    Especially those that were in multiples of 12 to 14 letters? (Even including the multiple of 1.)

    Or is Hort accidentally forgetting his textual position, and de facto giving a scribal argument for the longer (usually TR-Byz) text against his own GNT?

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

    PS.
    Note: I placed the question on one of the Facebook forums:

    New Testament Scholarship Worldwide
    Quote by Fenton Hort on Vaticanus omission
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/151949818157846/permalink/1035300543156098/

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

    > And who else discusses this Hortian acknowledgement of many Vaticanus corruptions ?

    [TC-Alternate-list] Hort on Vaticanus homoeteleuton and singular omission corruptions
    Steven Avery - March 26, 2011
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/4066

    There is a rich literature that understood the corruption and omission (compendium - abbreviated) nature of Codex Vaticanus shortly after the Cardinal Mai publication in 1857. So I plan to post on that analysis separately, including looking at articles from the British Quarterly Review, Titan, the Journal of Sacred Literature.

    So I was curious if this early awareness of Vatican corruption was properly referenced in the basic literature, like Wikipedia or Metzger.
    The answer is no <shocked, shocked>.

    However I did see on Wiki :

    "According to Hort, it was copied from a manuscript whose line length was 12–14 letters per line, because where the Codex Vaticanus's scribe made large omissions, they were typically 12–14 letters long "

    Hmmm...

    Wait a minute.
    Hort has Vaticanus as an extremely pure text, usually.

    The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
    http://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233
    When the singular readings of B are examined for the purpose here explained, it is found that on the one hand the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy, and on the other his slips are not proportionally numerous or bad. Like most transcribers, he occasionally omits necessary portions of text because his eye returned to the exemplar at the wrong place. As the longer portions of text so omitted consist usually either of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his exemplar was doubtless written in lines of this length. Often, but not always, an obvious cause of omission may be found in homoeoteieuton, the beginning or ending of consecutive portions of text with the same combinations of letters or of words. Reduplications due to the same cause likewise occur, but more rarely. More characteristic than these commonest of lapses is a tendency to double a single short word, syllable, or letter, or to drop one of two similar consecutive short words, syllables, or letters.

    (pic of verses from p. 234)


    So I checked, and the only references to this I found are James Royse and Nazaroo's blog by Ben.

    Royse has his fine writing :

    Scribal habits in early Greek New Testament papyri (2008)
    James Ronald Royse
    http://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA40
    Hort on singulars.

    Earlier Royse had quoted the Hort section in:

    The Treatment of Scribal Leaps in Metzger's Textual Commentary (1983)
    James R. Royse
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=6BAC6D1394313C547A70AC6 88AF0C11F.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=3391976

    And who else discusses this Hortian acknowledgement of many Vaticanus corruptions ?

    Monday, January 3, 2011
    Hort on Homoeoteleuton & Codex B Mr. Scrivener
    http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/01/hort-on-homoeoteleuton-codb.html

    This is a fine article, and afaik has not been posted and discussed here.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-22-2016 at 11:45 AM.

  2. Default

    Additional discussion of Vaticanus possible Latin linguistic arguments comes from Bernard Janin Sage:

    Bernard Janin Sage (P. C. Sense) questions great uncial dating edifice
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showpo...23&postcount=4


    For Sinaiticus we have separate threads on the Donaldson lingustics relating to Hermas and Barnabas.

    Plus, if there are relationships (e.g. homoeoteleuton) of either ms with a diglot ms. that would support Latin in the transmission.

  3. Default Skeat bypasses the Hort linguistics support for a Roman (Latin) origin

    Skeat alludes briefly to the Hort arguments in Scribes and Correctors p. 67

    Since a Western origin of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though sponsored by Hort, cannot now be accepted ....
    The context here was different, the arguments of Lake for an Egyptian provenance.

    The actual linguistic issue is not discussed. No mention of Isaac or Israel.

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

    Our previous discussion was here:

    Vaticanus linguistics, provenance and production - Bill Cooper linguistics note
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showpo...75&postcount=1

    However, the focus now is more simply on the linguistics.

    "In B [Codex Vaticanus] the Alexandrian indications are to the best of our belief wholly wanting.... Taking all kinds of indications together, we are inclined to surmise that B [Vaticanus] and A [Sinaiticus] were both written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B [Vaticanus] were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed ; and that the ancestors of A [Sinaiticus] were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical, not the textual sense. We do not forget such facts as the protracted unwillingness of the Roman church to accept the Epistle to the Hebrews, commended though it was by the large use made of it in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians...."11 ... 11 Westcott and Hort. See their: The New Testament in the Original Greek. 1882. New York. pp. 244-247.
    "the personal names in the codex are spelt as they appear in the Vulgate, and not as in the Greek mss - e.g. Isak (for Isaac) and Istrael or even Isdrael (for Israel)"
    The New Testament in the original Greek, the text revised (1881)
    B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
    https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA265

    "and in the Book of Acts especially the chapter divisions are those of the Vulgate, and not of the Greek."
    We should remember that the Acts chapter headings are not thought to be original. Wikipedia addresses the Acts issue, not the Latin word-forms:

    Wikipedia
    According to Hort, it was written in the West, probably in Rome, as suggested by the fact that the chapter division in the Acts common to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus occurs in no other Greek manuscript, but is found in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[64] Robinson countered this argument, suggesting that this system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by Jerome himself, as a result of his studies at Caesarea.[65]

    [64] Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Bros., 1882; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), pp. 264–267.
    [65] Robinson, Euthaliana, pp. 42, 101.
    Robinson's Jerome reference was extremely mild, and not really a counter:

    and it is just possible—though at present we need to speak with caution on this point—that S. Jerome himself is responsible for our 6nding it in the Vulgate p. 101

  4. Default

    There is a short paper that is focused on this issue.

    The Evidence of Manuscript Forgery
    James Johnson

    Ken Matto may have a copy.

Posting Permissions

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