Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Codex Zacynthius - a help in dating Codex Vaticanus?

  1. Default Codex Zacynthius - a help in dating Codex Vaticanus?

    First our previous notes here:

    notes on the condition of ancient parchment mss
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...&p=387#post387

    There have also been developments in the dating of certain manuscripts ....Parker and Birdsall's consideration of the palaeography and catena of Codex Zacynthius (040, E) prompt them to propose a date of around 700 for the majuscule underwriting, rather than Hatch's suggestion of the sixth century. 30 ... As more and more comparative material becomes available online, it will not be surprising if the dating of other manuscripts is reassessed.

    H.A.G. Houghton, "Recent Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism"
    Early Christianity 2.2 (2011) 245-68
    http://eprints.bham.ac.uk/627/2/2011...y-preprint.pdf
    Zacynthius and Vaticanus in one such "comparative material". As for Sinaiticus, noting the "truly exceptional" nature of its condition is an example of a comparative distinction that should have been a major consideration.
    Bernard Janin Sage (P. C. Sense) questions great uncial dating edifice
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ght=Zacynthius

    The section of Tregelles, where he explains that it is only the catena that causes the later date of Zacynthius is here:

    Journal of Sacred Literature (1859)
    Description of the Codex Zacynthius

    https://books.google.com/books?id=BWMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA171
    The text is in round full well-formed Uncial letters, such as I should have had no difficulty in ascribing to the sixth century, were it not that the catena of the same age has the round letters (Grk) so cramped as to make me believe that it belongs to the eighth century.



    Would
    this similarity of feature between Vaticanus and Zacynthius support Vaticanus also being of the later date? The similar textual features are significant, and we know that the terminus post quem of Zacynthius is about 700 AD, it can not be any earlier. This similarity would be consistent with Vaticanus being produced around the same time.
    The Tregelles book is reviewed here:

    Christian Remembrancer - (1862) p. 128-147
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Z_QDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA128
    And the book is here:

    Codex Zacynthius: Greek Palimpsest Fragments of the Gospel of Saint Luke, Obtained in the Island of Zante (1861)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=UYMxAQAAMAAJ


    Wikipedia
    The codex uses a peculiar system of chapter divisions, which it shares with
    Codex Vaticanus and Minuscule 579. A more common system divides chapters according to their titles.[5] The capital letters at the beginnings of sections stand out in the margin as in the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi.
    [5]

    [5] Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments,. 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. p. 91.
    The minuscule 579 is dated to the 13th century.

    Yet the strange section in the beginning of Sinaiticus Matthew, that includes accents and the OT prophecy book references, and really appears to be more 1800s than 300s, also was bringing in these sections, maybe from Vaticanus or 579?

    The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (1954)
    David Daube
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ie88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA145







    Are there Latin mss with these types of sections?

    In Acts we know there are.

  2. Default Abbot and Burgon

    Abbot and Burgon went around the horn on this, but they were hampered by not really understanding the Matthew chapters in Sinaiticus as the first hand, as explained later by Skeat.


    The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: And Other Critical Essays
    The Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts
    By Ezra Abbot
    https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141

    Mr. Burgon finds in its scheme of chapters “a striking note of primitiveness.’’ But the Sinaitic has no division into chapters at all, a prima manu. Is not that quite as primitive ? Further, Mr. Burgon’s argument appears to be of a circular character. The only proof of the high antiquity of the “ scheme of chapters ” referred to is its existence in the Vatican MS.

  3. Default Greg Goswell

    EARLY READERS OF THE GOSPELS:
    THE KEPHALAIA AND TITLOI OF CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (2009)
    Greg Goswell
    Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne, Australia
    http://jgrchj.net/volume6/JGRChJ6-7_Goswell.pdf

    While he does some interesting work on Mark, including Sinaiticus paragraphs, he does not seem to have the Matthew sections that were part of that special added early work (that looks rather late.) With an 1840 production date, early and late are an artificial distinction, everything is late .

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

    Here he goes into Acts, on an issue that is in my discussion with James Snapp:

    Ancient Patterns of Reading: The Subdivision of the
    ACTS OF THE APOSTLES IN CODEX SlNAITICUS (2010)
    Greg Goswell
    Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne, Australia
    http://www.jgrchj.net/volume7/JGRChJ7-5_Goswell.pdf

    As will be shown below, this system of capitulation has a marked correlation with the secondary numbered system of capitulation of Acts in Vaticanus (which, in the case of Vaticanus, covers the whole book).31 Table 2

Posting Permissions

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