Campianus (M) (021) used for Sinaiticus Eusebian section? - Burgon

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
FYI: See Zacynthius and Vaticanus commection 131 footnote in bottom post.

579 Sacynthius Sinaiticus ! Vaticanus
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ynthius-a-help-in-dating-codex-vaticanus.655/
Zacynthius in Wikipedia 579 Vaticanus


========

Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292

Context Scrivener and the Constantine 50 per Eusebius

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered “216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains the phenomenon in Cod. M), against ver. 29 is set the number, (“ 216,”) instead of against ver. 28. But what then ? Has not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And which can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?]

Then Matthew 27:49

P. 301
1671809224618.png


Wikipedia
Codex Campianus is designated as "M" or "021" in the Gregory-Aland cataloging system and as "ε 72" in the Von Soden system. It is a Greek uncial manuscript of the New Testament, dated palaeographically to the 9th century. The manuscript has complex contents. It has marginalia and was prepared for liturgical (religious) use.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
My conjecture, the Eusebian sections were added Tischendorf, or supplied by him, and he had access to M.
Or, it was available to Benedict.

The idea that Sinaiticus supplied M is extremely difficult. :)

2. No inference as to the antiquity of this Codex can be drawn from the Eusebian notation of Sections in the margin : that notation having been confessedly added at a subsequent date. - Burgon p. 294

Whether banished or retained, to reason about the lost work of Ammoniis from the Sections of Eusebius (as Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against ^historical Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit. - Burgon p. 304
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Did Uspensky mention these sections from his visits?

From memory, no. Yet he did mention cola et commata.
It would be good to have ALL his Sinaiticus material.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Transmission and Transformation of the Eusebian Gospel Apparatus in Greek Medieval Manuscripts
Jeremiah Coogan
https://www.academia.edu/44504140/T...ospel_Apparatus_in_Greek_Medieval_Manuscripts

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

Studies of the Eusebian apparatus in individual late ancient manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus [GA 01]: Jongkind 2007, 109–20; Codex Alexandrinus [GA 02]: Smith 2014, 333–46; GA 022, 023, 042: Hixson 2019) offer preliminary indications. Von Soden (1902, 392) estimates that approximately one quarter of gospel manuscripts with the Eusebian apparatus have the wrong number of sections in at least one gospel.

Scribal Habits in Sixth-Century Greek Purple Codices, Leiden: Brill.
Elijah Hixson (2019),

==================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Looking for the Tischendorf section mentioned by Burgon on Matthew 15:28 / 29

1859
https://books.google.com/books?id=y_MWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq="et+Latinis.+Auget+vero+hac+in+re+codicis+M+auctoritatem+quod"&source=bl&ots=oNqbUzUWol&sig=ACfU3U3jPFPo94y50elHQZv2Xp3aonV0hw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1g-ag3uT_AhVyD1kFHQisBgsQ6AF6BAgXEAM#v=onepage&q="et Latinis. Auget vero hac in re codicis M auctoritatem quod"&f=false

1869
books.google.com

Novum Testamentum Graece

books.google.com

15:28 ϛ Ln hunc versum sic habent: καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα· καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη :): cf Lc 22:37 Esai 53:12) cum EFGHKLM (c. ast?)PSUVΓΔ(sic)Π al pl (sed H φωνη pro γραφη, V al pauc post λεγουσα add το) c ff2. g1. l n vg cop (sed non exprim η λεγουσα) syrutr go arm aeth. Vix alludit Ps-Hipp de antichrist. pag 37 (ed. Gud.) ος επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων βασιλευς - αποδεδεκται· -καταχθονιων δε οτι και εν νεκροις κατελογισθη, ευαγγελιζομενος τας των αγιων ψυχας δια θανατου τον θανατον νικων, nisi forte haec cum Eutychiano dicto apud Vig. lib. 4 contra Eutychen conferenda sunt. Scribit enim Vigilius l. l. Quod enim ibi (in evglio) legitur de Christo, quando inter duos latrones crucifixus est, ex prophetae testmoni dicentis: Et inter iniquos deputatus est, tu dixistai: Et inter mortuos deputatus est. Immerito vero ad Marci lectionem adhiberi videntur verba Origenis contra Celsum1,420: ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ Ἰουδαῖός φησιν ὅτι δύναιτο ἄν τις ὁμοίως ἀναισχυντῶν καὶ περὶ λῃστοῦ καὶ ἀνδροφόνου κολασθέντος εἰπεῖν ὅτι οὗτός γε οὐχὶ λῃστὴς ἀλλὰ θεὸς ἦν· προεῖτε γὰρ τοῖς συλλῃσταῖς ὅτι πείσεται τοιαῦτα οἷα δὴ πέπονθε. - καὶ ταῦτα λέγομεν ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγ. προειῆσθαι πως· ἐπεὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη ὁ θεὸς παρὰ τοῖς ἀνόμοις, λῃστὴν μᾶλλον - βουλμίνοις ἀπολυθῆναι, τὸν δὲ ιν. σταυρῶσαι, καὶ σταυρώσασιν αὐτὸν μεταξὺ ληστῶν δύο. Spectant ista ad Lc potius … omisimus vero versum (Gboo Schu “ex Marxi genere non est; formulam citandi ex Io, locum e Lc cepisse videtur glossae auctor”) cum אABC*et3DX al45 fere (in his evglstaria fere20) k sah sl2., item Euscanon ut vdtr. In antiquiorib enim edd aliquot qui ipsum versum habent, ut M, inde a Και συν αυτω v. 27 usque ελογισθη notatur sectio σιέ addito canoe ά (quo quae omnib 4 evv communia sunt continentur), sequente inde a και οι παραπορ. sectione σισ́ cum canone σ́, quo continentur quae et Mt et Mc. Quod si recte habet, nec Ammonius nec Eus legit versum 28., alioquin proprium ei numerum dedissent, quem revera in allis cdd habet et Graecis [iam in P] et Latinis. Auget vero hac in re codicis M auctoritatem quod, qui versum non habent, A et C consentientes habet in numeris Ammonianis, codicem A et. in Eusebianis, quibis C abstinet. Atque et. in Lc numeros Amm-Eus aliena manu tactos esse idem cod M probat, in quo praeter morem inter numeros σοσ́ et σοή ipse is de quo quaeritur σοζ (277) cum canone suo [ι? η?] desideratur. In plerisque vero cdd sectio Lucae 277 canoem Eusebianum 8 adscriptum habet, quo continetur quae Lucae cum Marco communia sunt. Eundem modum etiam indices canonum quos habemus sequuntur. Cf eum quem editioni nostrae ipsi praefiximus.

Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894. Print.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tischendorf
1869
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5hDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA395
1872
https://books.google.com/books?id=fEVBUqrl8tEC&pg=PA395


15:28 ϛ Ln hunc versum sic habent: καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα· καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη :): cf Lc 22:37 Esai 53:12) cum EFGHKLM (c. ast?)PSUVΓΔ(sic)Π al pl (sed H φωνη pro γραφη, V al pauc post λεγουσα add το) c ff2. g1. l n vg cop (sed non exprim η λεγουσα) syrutr go arm aeth. Vix alludit Ps-Hipp de antichrist. pag 37 (ed. Gud.) ος επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων βασιλευς - αποδεδεκται· -καταχθονιων δε οτι και εν νεκροις κατελογισθη, ευαγγελιζομενος τας των αγιων ψυχας δια θανατου τον θανατον νικων, nisi forte haec cum Eutychiano dicto apud Vig. lib. 4 contra Eutychen conferenda sunt. Scribit enim Vigilius l. l. Quod enim ibi (in evglio) legitur de Christo, quando inter duos latrones crucifixus est, ex prophetae testmoni dicentis: Et inter iniquos deputatus est, tu dixistai: Et inter mortuos deputatus est. Immerito vero ad Marci lectionem adhiberi videntur verba Origenis contra Celsum1,420: ὁ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ Ἰουδαῖός φησιν ὅτι δύναιτο ἄν τις ὁμοίως ἀναισχυντῶν καὶ περὶ λῃστοῦ καὶ ἀνδροφόνου κολασθέντος εἰπεῖν ὅτι οὗτός γε οὐχὶ λῃστὴς ἀλλὰ θεὸς ἦν· προεῖτε γὰρ τοῖς συλλῃσταῖς ὅτι πείσεται τοιαῦτα οἷα δὴ πέπονθε. - καὶ ταῦτα λέγομεν ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγ. προειῆσθαι πως· ἐπεὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη ὁ θεὸς παρὰ τοῖς ἀνόμοις, λῃστὴν μᾶλλον - βουλμίνοις ἀπολυθῆναι, τὸν δὲ ιν. σταυρῶσαι, καὶ σταυρώσασιν αὐτὸν μεταξὺ ληστῶν δύο. Spectant ista ad Lc potius … omisimus vero versum (Gboo Schu “ex Marxi genere non est; formulam citandi ex Io, locum e Lc cepisse videtur glossae auctor”) cum אABC*et3DX al45 fere (in his evglstaria fere20) k sah sl2., item Euscanon ut vdtr. In antiquiorib enim edd aliquot qui ipsum versum habent, ut M, inde a Και συν αυτω v. 27 usque ελογισθη notatur sectio σιέ addito canoe ά (quo quae omnib 4 evv communia sunt continentur), sequente inde a και οι παραπορ. sectione σισ́ cum canone σ́, quo continentur quae et Mt et Mc. Quod si recte habet, nec Ammonius nec Eus legit versum 28., alioquin proprium ei numerum dedissent, quem revera in allis cdd habet et Graecis [iam in P] et Latinis. Auget vero hac in re codicis M auctoritatem quod, qui versum non habent, A et C consentientes habet in numeris Ammonianis, codicem A et. in Eusebianis, quibis C abstinet. Atque et. in Lc numeros Amm-Eus aliena manu tactos esse idem cod M probat, in quo praeter morem inter numeros σοσ́ et σοή ipse is de quo quaeritur σοζ (277) cum canone suo [ι? η?] desideratur. In plerisque vero cdd sectio Lucae 277 canoem Eusebianum 8 adscriptum habet, quo continetur quae Lucae cum Marco communia sunt. Eundem modum etiam indices canonum quos habemus sequuntur. Cf eum quem editioni nostrae ipsi praefiximus. Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894. Print.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
15:29 παραπορευομενοι :): ut et. Mt): D Eusdem 498 (“κατα δε τον μαρκον”) παραγοντες (d pariter ac itpl vg praetereuntes; n qui transiebant) αυτων et. Eusdem): D 59. k n om ουα (min pauc Eusdem ουαι, quod idem Mill edidit): אca(non*neccb)L*Δgr d k om :: ut Mt οικοδομων ante τρις. ημερ. cum BDL 2pe c k n sah cop syrsch … ϛ post ημεραις :): ut Mt) cum אACPXΓΔΠ unc9 al fere omn ff2. l vg syrp arm aeth go Eusdem (οικοδομ. αυτον) τρισιν (Schu prob vdtr) cum ADgrPV al10 fere c k (triduo) sah … ϛ εν τρισιν :): ut Mt, ubi om εν L d)cum אBC(sic)LXΓΔΠ unc9 al pler d ff2. l n (in triduo) vg cop Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894. Print.

dem explained
1680365219132.png













Write to Kirk DiVietro
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Campianus

1680398079808.png


Figure 1.5 Matthew 3:9-16. Paris. Bibliotheque nationalede France, ms. gr. 48
(Codex Campianus, GA 021), fol. 25r, ninth century CE. The section continues
on fol. 25v. Source: gallica.bnf.fr/Bibliotheque nationale de France.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jongkind

Matthew 335 336 337
no “scripture night be fulfilled
Matthew 27:38 - two thieves crucified, one tight one left

p. 110

p. 117
1680708605540.png

If we consider sections 163 and 164 together. Sinaiticus is only joined in its version of the placement problem by Codex Bezae (D) and Codex Campianus (M), though more manuscripts join in at section 164. Interestingly, the scribe makes a correction to the table number of section 163, which was initially 5 or 6 (probably the latter), but changed to 2. Canon 163/6 is the combination found in most manuscripts that have section 163 at an earlier place. The correction to table 2 is indeed correct for the section where Sinaiticus places section 163 (164 in most other manuscripts). The change of table number seems to reflect a conflation between two traditions of the apparatus. The confusion suggests that the Eusebian apparatus of Sinaiticus is taken from a manuscript that included verses 2h-3.

Conflation of two traditions -- Sinaiticus must be later!

An area for further research might be the relation between the Eusebian apparatus of Sinaiticus with minuscules 124 and 788, both members of family 13. Both in the placement of the apparatus as well as in deviating canon numbers, the three manuscripts share readings. However, only after a complete comparison of the apparatus more can be said about
any shared tradition.124


Campianus
Bezae
124 - family 13 - Austria
788 - family 12 - National Library of Greece
Amiatinus
Zacynthius
Vaticanus

Gordon Fee
Colwell

1680410692415.png

1680410772903.png

1680410830374.png

1680410875370.png

p. 117
1680411005994.png

p. 118
1680411121345.png

1680412167956.png

p. 121
1680411248321.png

1680411301422.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Thanks.

For the moment, we are putting aside the Eusebian canons due to the large amount of labour to focus on a couple of decent possibilities where Sinaiticus got the text from another ms. Campianus or ms. 788. The learning curve to really find shared misplacements is daunting while so many other amazing things are out there (and there are many I am not even mentioning.)

For a week or so we decided our focus is:

1) the Bulgarian paper - Borislav Borisov - amazing, new and unexpected. May blow open the field.
epigraphy, calligraphy, codicology, palaeography

2) Revelation and Andreas - this just needs to be sorted out, precisely which variants lead to this backwards upside-down cake of thinking Sinaiticus is some type of pre-cursor to the Andreas commentary, when it is clear that the sensible relationship is that the late Sinaiticus text used an Andreas commentary exemplar, which are common on Mt. Athos. The issue is pulling out and documenting a good number of root variants that are in Sinaiticus, related to the Andreas commentary, and would be unexpected without the commentary.

3) nomina sacra - it can give solid, albeit not probative evidence of Sinaiticus using later Greek or Latin mss. We may be able to find a few good examples with a modest amount of work.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N) (022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Petropolitanus_Purpureus

It is understood that the manuscript originated in the imperial scriptorium of Constantinople and was dismembered by crusaders in the 12th century. In 1896 Nicholas II of Russia commissioned Fyodor Uspensky's Russian Archaeological Institute of Constantinople to buy the greater part of it for the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg.[2]

Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. pp. 56–58.
https://archive.org/details/textkritikdesne00greggoog/page/n69/mode/1up?view=theater

Tischendorf connection
https://books.google.com/books?id=jvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA183

also noted by
Dirk Jongkind p. 119

1681668968373.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top