Pamphilus colophon in Esther and II Esdras

[Steven Avery]

Esther note:

"It was collated with an exceedingly ancient copy which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus: now, at the end of the same very ancient book, which began with the first of Kings, and terminated at Esther, there was in the margin a certain autograph intimation of the same martyr running thus:—

“It was copied and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen, which had been corrected by him. Antoninus, a confessor, collated it; I, Pamphilus, corrected the volume in the prison, through the great favour and enlargement of God. And indeed it is not hard to say that it would not he easy to find a copy comparable to this copy. Now the same most ancient book differed from this volume as to the [a corrector makes it ‘certain '] proper names.”

2 Esdras note:

“Collated with an extremely ancient copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus: with regard to which there was attached at the end a subscription in his own handwriting, running thus:—

‘Copied from, and corrected by, the Hexapla of Origen; Antoninus collated; I, Pamphilus, corrected”

Journal of Sacred Literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=NyE2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA164

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

two closely related threads!

This page on the CPamph corrector and script analysis seems it could be helpful:

CPamph corrector - only on the Leipzig section - does later quire numbers - knows ancient style - Tischendorf?

Collated against an extremely old copy corrected in the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus, which copy at the end has a signature in his own hand, reading thus:

Copied from and corrected against the Hexapla of Origen Antoninus collated I, Pamphilus, corrected
Second a longer colophon at the end of Esther:8

Collated against an extremely old copy corrected in the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus. At the end of this very old book (which begins with the First Book of Kingdoms and ends at Esther) is the signature, in its distinctive form, of Pamphilus himself, reading thus:

Copied from and corrected against the Hexapla of Origen as corrected by himself. Antoninus the confessor collated; I, Pamphilus, corrected the volume in prison, with the great favour and enlargement of God. And if it is not too much to say, to find a copy to match this one would not be easy.

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

The same very ancient book disagrees with this volume in the proper names

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

Robert J. Littman-Tobit The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary) (2008)

Robert J. Littman-Tobit The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary) (2008)

www.academia.edu

Collated with an exceedingly ancient copy, which was corrected by the hand
of the holy martyr Pamphilus; and at the end of the same ancient book which
began with the first Book of Kings, and ended with Esther. There is some such
subscription as this in the hand of the same martyr: Copied and corrected
from the Hexapla of Origen, corrected by himself. Antonius the Confessor
collated it; I, Pamphilus, corrected the volume in prison, through the great
favor and enlargement of God; and if it may be said without offense, it is not
easy to find a copy comparable to this copy. The same ancient copy differed
from the present volume in respect to certain proper names.

 

[Steven Avery]

colophons - Greek transcription of the Codex Sinaiticus Project


2 Esdras
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=9&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

εϲδραϲ
β

αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω
τατον λιαν αντιγραφον
δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του
αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμφιλου
οπερ αντιγραφον προϲ τω
τελει ϋποϲημειωϲιϲ τιϲ
ϊδιοχειροϲ αυτου ϋπεκειτο
εχουϲα ουτωϲ : μετελημφθη και διορθωθη
προϲ τα εξαπλα ωριγενουϲ
αντωνινοϲ αντεβαλεν ·
παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα
: > > >

Esther
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=9&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&ve rse=3l&zoomSlider=0
αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω τατον λιαν αντιγραφον δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμφιλου οπερ αντιγραφον προϲ τω τελει ϋποϲημειωϲιϲ τιϲ ϊδιοχειροϲ αυτου ϋπεκειτο εχουϲα ουτωϲ :
μετελημφθη και διορθωθη προϲ τα εξαπλα ωριγενουϲ αντωνινοϲ αντεβαλεν παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα

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

εϲθηρ

αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω
τατον λιαν αντιγραφον
δεδιορθωμενον χειρι
του αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμ
φιλου · προϲ δε τω τελει
του αυτου παλαιωτατου
βιβλιου οπερ αρχην μεν
ειχεν απο τηϲ πρωτηϲ
των βαϲιλειων · ειϲ δε
την εϲθηρ εληγεν . τοι
αυτη τιϲ εν πλατει ϊδιω
χειροϲ ϋποϲημιωϲιϲ του
αυτου μαρτυροϲ ϋπεκειτο
εχουϲα ουτωϲ : μετελημφθη και διορ
θωθη προϲ τα εξαπλα
ωριγενουϲ ϋπ αυτου δι
ορθωμενα · αντωνινοϲ
ομολογητηϲ αντεβαλε ·
παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα το
τευχοϲ εν τη φυλακη ·
δια την του θυ πολλη
και χαριν και πλατυϲμο
και ει γε μη βαρυ ειπει
τουτω τω αντιγραφω
παραπληϲιω̣ν ευρειν
αντιγραφον ου ραδιον >
>>>>>>>>>
διεφωνη δε το αυτο
παλαιωτατον βιβλιο
προϲ τοδε το τευχοϲ
ειϲ τα κυρια ονοματα
>>>>>>>>>

 

[Steven Avery]

David Parker- should we believe the colophon?

David Parker (D.C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London/Peabody, MA 2010) raises questions about whether the colophon should be associated with the corrections at all. It could be copied by the same hand, but the corrections and the colophon have two very different sources. (email note)

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

Parker

The second colophon is more informative. This is what it states: the corrector whom we call cpamph compared Codex Sinaiticus with a copy of the five books 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras and Esther. This ‘extremely old copy’ had been made by two prisoners in Caesarea (at a time which we can establish to have been 307-09). It had been very carefully produced, Antoninus copying it and Pamphilus correcting it. The source from which they copied it was the master copy of the Hexapla, containing Origen’s own corrections.

The corrections by cpamph would therefore be only one copying (two if we include the process of making the changes in Codex Sinaiticus) away from one of the most important stages in the development of the Greek Bible, namely Origen’s Hexapla. p. 86-87

This colophon locates an important link in the chain of passing down the text. As it happens, it combines with Eusebius’ account to place the work in a highly charged environment of physical and psychological violence. No ivory tower for Pamphilus and Antoninus, these were textual scholars who also maintained their allegiance to the death.

Should we believe this claim? There are arguments both for and against it. In favour of it is the fact that there is evidence that the text given by cpamph is indeed similar to the form of the Septuagint known to Origen. Against it is the frequency with which a colophon making similar claims appears in very different texts and manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments.

Another difficulty is that the size of the codex described in the colophon is problematical. There is no evidence that Christians were producing parchment codices as early as about 310, when Pamphilus was in prison, and the circumstances under which he and Antoninus would have been working are such that everyday papyrus seems a more likely material to have been available. But no single papyrus p. 83

And the leaves of 1844 are some of the most remarkable in the Codex, containing as they do the extensive Pamphilian corrections to 2 Esdras and Esther with their accompanying colophon, and the three crosses note. p. 133

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

Parker also does not go into the palaeographic dating problem. If the colophon is true, and c. 7th century, the corrections affiliated with that note should be in a very different script style than the original production.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Esther note

 

[Steven Avery]

Carm
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-37#post-1133660

Third: there are two famous colophons after the text of 2 Esdras and Esther claiming a correction of the text in Caesarea at least in the 6th century; such colophons should be viewed with caution because they became inflationary in later times, being copied from one codex to the other, but these two predate such secondary usurpation.

After a valid caution, Christfried Böttrich is writing in circles in the “predate” conclusion. If the colophons were for “inflationary” purposes added to increase the potential age-value of the manuscript, they could have been added as late as the 1840s (when they would have significance.)

Here are four considerations:

1) there is a Coislinianus potential exemplar

2) the Coislinianus colophon is NT - the likelihood of a similar transmission schema involving Pamphilius and Cæsarea in both the NT and OT is exceedingly low

3) the pseudo-random 43 leaves (including 5 full intact quires) taken in the Tischendorf 1844 theft were carefully heisted, and the “coincidence” of the two colophons being at the end of the 43 leaves was a major part of the Tischendorf CFA-Sinaiticus con

4) the hand-writing should be compared to Tischendorf and Simonides

==========

Adolf Hilgenfeld and Tischendorf tussled on the significance of the colophons for dating both the colophons and the main text. However their debate had the faux presupposition that the colophons are authentic, although it would be good to check Hilgenfeld’s wording.

Afaik, related to (4) the colophons are not given a firm connection to any other writing on the manuscript.