CPamph corrector - only on the Leipzig section - 2nd quire numbers - knows ancient style - Tischendorf? - Hexapla

[Steven Avery]

The CPamph corrector is especially interesting.

Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus - H. J. M Milne and T. C. Skeat, 1938

The only remaining correctors of any importance are those of Group C. This comprises, in the classification of Tischendorf and Lake, the individuals Ca, Cb, Cc, Cc*, while Lake (O.T., p. xxi) uses the term CPamph to designate the scholar who collated Kings to Esther with the manuscript of Pamphilus and Antoninus, and whom Tischendorf originally equated with Ca. - p. 46

The CPamph corrections are confined to the Leipzig portion of the manuscript, and therefore lie strictly outside our purview, nor could we here examine the original. However, the evidence of the facsimile appears completely to substantiate Lake’s view that CPamph must be distinguished from Ca, from whom both in forms of letters and method of correction he noticeably departs. Moreover, CPamph is demonstrably later in date, for in O.T. 21, col. 2, ... - p. 46-47

more on the colophon on p. 64 - Fabiani like Hilgenfeld

The moment we see any feature that is only in the two non-contiguous sections of Leipzig and not in the rest of the manuscript, the immediate suspicion arises that Tischendorf was involved in the creation of the feature. This is especially easy with corrections, which can simply be placed in blank space.

If the notes were in before 1844, Tischendorf used a very exacting theft to pull out the five quires plus a bit of the sixth to get the two colophons. And the fact that the corrector was in one or both (to be checked) of the two non-contiguous sections and nowhere else in Sinaiticus is a most astounding coincidence.

Note that the Codex Sinaiticus Project actually assigns the two colophons to Pamphilus, which is totally absurd, since he lived c. 300 AD.

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

Closely related threads

Tischendorf palaeography attempts
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.195[/COLOR][/URL]
(note quote to be researched about condition of CFA)

Pamphilus colophon in Esther and II Esdras
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.550

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

 

[Steven Avery]

corrector that only shows up in Leipzig 1844 - CPamph

Here is an example of his regular script correction.

From Ephesians 5:9
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=41&chapter=5&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

NOT FOUND

The second set of quire numbers is also said to be this CPamph corrector. However, the numbers are said to have a different flow, a type of cursive majuscule, so that will go in next.

Let us see what we can find for the second set of quire numbers, assigned to CPamph, with examples both in the 1844 Leipzig and the 1859 British Library. Clearly, in any scenario, we have to consider the possibility that those second set of quire numbers were put in after 1840, when the activity swirled around the manuscript.

That is Quire Number 37 on the upper right, one source says the second group of quire numbers is also CPamph.
The page includes Esther 6 to 8.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=36&side=v&zoomSlider=0

One gentleman is trying to make a case for authenticity involving the unusual aspect of the CPamph script, although apparently only focused on the ones like the second pic above, the quire number. The idea is that this is an ancient script from a handful of old manuscripts that would not be available to the Russico Ramblers. (We tend to think that either the Athos men with a wide manuscript and calligraphy background, or the Tischendorf skill with old manuscripts should easily account for the second set of quire numbers.)

 

[Steven Avery]

Our discussions about script have focused on four elements that are thought to be difficult for the Russico Ramblers or the Tischendorf Manglers (this presentation from our textual script expert friend is planned for inclusion down the thread.)

1) three crosses note (only in the 1844 Leipzig Tischendorf theft folia)
2) upper right - pages - second quire numeration
3) colophons - Esther and 2 Esdras (note: these are only in the 1844 Leipzig Tischendorf theft folia)
4) cpamph correctors - (note: these are only in the 1844 Leipzig Tischendorf theft folia)

Why mention the theft? When we are aware of the brazenness and deception around the theft, and the self-serving alibis created, up to the "saved from fire" specialty 15 years later, and the various trimming, tampering and colouring and staining that fits the history to a "T", we realize we have to allow various special notes, symbols, apparatus entries and more to have been put in from 1844 on. This is true even if we are allowing the ms. itself to be from antiquity.

Anything that got out in 1844, before Uspensky saw the manuscript, could easily have been handled with special attention, including the colophons, which Tischendorf was well aware would be a major point in claiming that this was a very ancient manuscript, despite its incredible "phenomenally good condition".

 

[Steven Avery]

pics of the Pamphilus colophons

2 Esdras - Pamphilus colophon

Esther - Pamphilus colophon

 

[Steven Avery]

Three Crosses note

Three Crosses (with one line of Sinaiticus text to show crosses)

 

[Steven Avery]

more Cpamph
Q36 v4 - 2 Esdras, 22:37 - 23:15 library: LUL folio: xii_v scribe:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=36&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Compare to Job Ca huge omission
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=71&side=v&zoomSlider=0

“upright ogival majuscule,” - Rossanensis commentary

The following was given in support of the idea that some of the scripts above would be unknown to the Athos scribes (and perhaps Tischendorf.)

Guglielmo Cavallo (b. 1938)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Cavallo
(check on coptic omega mu)

Roger Shaler Bagnall (b. 1947)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_S._Bagnall

The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology
Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri p. 101-148
Guglielmo Cavallo
Edited by Robert Shaler Bagnall
https://books.google.com/books?id=yJqDGu1zZ3AC&pg=PA132

Cavallo on the rarity of the script (from the Oxford Handbook of Papyrology):

In the following centuries, the upright severe style seems to evolve into the Byzantine script called “upright ogival majuscule,” taking on a certain contrast in the thickness of the strokes and thus exhibiting a stylistic taste of a general nature ever more widely diffused in late antiquity.14 Fourth-century examples are P.Oxy. XI 1352 (Psalms) and PSI X 1171 (Aristophanes), and fifth-century, P.FIor. Ill 389 (Sibylline oracles) (figure 5.29). However, instances from this period are rare; its floruit is middle Byzantine, thus rather later. By contrast, scripts that lean more to the right were widely diffused from the fourth century on. Prominent among these are the “inclined ogival majuscule,” which, as the Byzantine period progresses, also ...

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

the three crosses note is near-identical to 6th century upright ogival majuscule, and I wouldn't have a problem saying it was the same person as the one who wrote the cpamph correctors, even though there are some minor differences in the script there. The marginal corrections look like upright ogival majuscule with a bit of influence from Biblical majuscule, which is about what I would expect from someone using a manuscript written in biblical majuscule to write the corrections. Those would be copied from that exemplar. You see the same thing in the chapter headings of Codex Sinopensis.

The three crosses note is a composition though, so it would not have the scribe imitating (consciously or not) the hand of an exemplar, so it is a much more pure example of upright ogival majuscule.

This is one spot where we definitely agree. The three crosses note looks like a more freehand composition. Simonides said the note had a special two-fold signification, implying that he wrote the note.

"But although I possess many proofs of the spuriousness of the manuscript, I shall keep silent on these for the present. First, because I intend to write a special work on the subject, and secondly, because the Codex will prove this itself when published, and the portion already published partly shows this, and if you understood the twofold signification of the note which exists at the end of the fourth column of the eighth page of the pseudo-Frederico-Augustine Codex, you would repent of what both you and your patrons have stirred up against me inconsiderately.'

Simonides, Jan 21, 1863, letter to the Guardian
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.167

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

In some way, this Rossanensis commentary is looked upon as this unusual script.

sample of that hand. it's from the commentary on Codex Rossanensis. That manuscript would not have been available to Tischendorf.

.... Three crosses note compares to that script, and the new quire markers have similarities

o is usually narrow, but in biblical majuscule of the main Sinaiticus text, it is as wide as other letters.

three crosses note and the Rossanensis hand: similar letters would be the narrow o, c, and ε, the ω is angled more than rounded—it's like two inverted gothic arches, and π generally doesn't have any part of the horizontal stroke hanging over the edges (or its only barely there on one side).

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

notes

Surprisingly, this is supposed to be an example of the script they used but would not know.


not at all. middle byzantine examples are more developed and have a different form

here is what the script looked like in the 8th century (the right column)

it is far more compressed, decorated with serifs of Δ, θ, very stark contrast in thickness between vertical and horizontal strokes.

if they forged it from an example on Athos, it should look like that, not like the 6th century examples

Does that look like any of our Sinaiticus scripts?

 

[Steven Avery]

Notes

Notes Shared

the hands of the corrections are consistent with hands in later centuries, so what was to stop some monk pulling it down a few centuries later and making some corrections

Milne and Skeat deal with the date of Sinaiticus a little bit, and they invoke several papyri that would not have been known in the mid-1800s as well as a slightly different hand for what they call "cursive words", but they appeal to Lake for the dates of the correctors.

Amy Myshrall also discusses the hand of the correctors very briefly in her dissertation. I think she said something about them being difficult to date because of mixing old and new forms, but that isn't unusual at all (it's part of the difficulty of palaeographic dating). I've seen the same type of mixing older and newer aspects of a hand in other manuscripts as well.

From Skeat & Milne (who had no access to Leipzig, according to a note about the CPamph corrections). Add to this from our looking at the book.

The most obvious objection to placing the manuscript later than the fourth century is the appearance of the writing, and this, the palaeographical argument, must always admit a certain latitude, since the test is so highly subjective and the steps in the development of the large uncial script characteristic of the Sinaiticus still very imperfectly fixed chronologically. We give here a list of approximately datable examples of this style ofhand, which, being most familiarly exemplified by the early Biblical codices, goes by the name of Biblical uncial':

1. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 66r (now in Cairo; fragment of a roll with epodes of Callimachus), which bears on the back some cursive writing not later than eire. A.D. 200. The recto itselfmust therefore be at least several decades earlier.

2. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 685 Bodl. Gr. class, f. 75 (P); fragment of roll of Homer, Iliad xvii), with some cursive writing of the late second century in the margin.

3. Rylands Papyrus r6 (fragment of a roll of New Comedy), the back of which has been utilized for a private letter dated A.D. 255-6. The recto is therefore not likely to be much, if at all, later than A.D. 200.

4. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus r62r " P. Lond. Inv. 247r; leaf of a vellum codex of Thucydides, collected speeches), to which some corrections have been made in a cursive hand of the early fourth century.

5. Beatty Papyrus IV (papyrus codex of Genesis), with a marginal addition in an early fourth-century hand (see F. G. Kenyon,
The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. r, pi. iv).

 

[Steven Avery]

Does CPamph start at the very beginning and end of LUL
Is there a distinction in script between CPamph and Pamphilus
Does CPamph do some header stuff in 1859

 

[Steven Avery]

Pete Myers

The Textual Affinities of Sinaiticus ' Correctors in 2 Esdras: An Analysis of Proper Nouns
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...c?sequence=1&usg=AOvVaw1JXOKzfGyjG8oNCvsmBqLi


R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des 2. Esrabuches (Göttingen 2003) 15, see the discussion at 296-308.

18 For summaries of the text groups see Hanhart (n. 15) 30-31. They are discussed below



Cpamph Insertions Only Attested Elsewhere by Gᴸ


Much of the Lucianic/Antiochene text of 2 Esdras (from now on: Gᴸ) is preserved in manuscripts 19 and 108, the more independent witness 93, and occasionally 121, which sometimes shares readings from the same branch of Gᴸ as 93, but otherwise belongs to the a-group.1 2 Esdras 21:17-25 have been copied again in 728, but with the Gᴸ text. Following Hanhart's convention, this part of the witness is denoted by 728ᴵ. As a revision of G, presumably the Gᴸ text can be no earlier than mid-second century and the association of Gᴸ with Lucian of Antioch presumably means this text can be no later than early fourth century. Some of the data presented below may support the view that the Gᴸ text as attested in 19-108 and 93 (twelfth-thirteenth century), had undergone some continual intentional development after the early fourth century.

1 Hanhart (n. 44) 13; J. Heinzle, “Esra oder Nehemia? Noch einmal zur Heimkehrerliste im Cod. Ambr. D der gotischen Bibel,” ZDA 145 (2016) 3.

Cpamph is the most prolific of Sinaiticus' correctors in 2 Esdras, inserting, substituting, or changing a total of 179 proper nouns. The majority of cpamph's corrections are insertions.

Hanhart on Esdrae


In 3 cases, cpamph's correction is a singular reading that is not closer to any particular tradition: