Resources from 2008 and 2013 Textual forum - Vaticanus Retracing
[textualcriticism] Correctors' Hands in Codex Vaticanus
Wieland Willker - Nov 7, 2008
B3 = enhancer
The date of the enhancement is not known.
[TC-Alternate-list] Vaticanus underwrite fade - if you can't see the writing, errors are alighting
Steven Avery - Nov 18. 2013
[textualcriticism] Vaticanus - "the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe"
Steven Avery - Sept 13, 2013
"Tischendorf dated the overwriting to the 10th-11th century on the basis of some writing in the same ink. That seemed relatively plausible to me when I looked at it."
In this context, plausible means nothing more than possible.
[textualcriticism] Vaticanus retracing - spectrographic analysis - palimpsest - umlauts and underwriting - Codex Sinaiticus English translation
Steven Avery - Nov 12, 2013
[textualcriticism] Vaticanus retracing - 15th century date traces to Enrico Fabiani, by monk Clement
Steven Avery - Nov 12, 2013
See the discussion by P. C. Sense, referenced in 5881 and separately on this forum. This discusses the relationship between the retracing date and the original writing date.
Latin section posted on Textual Criticism by George Somsel - see #4219 above
B: [Gregory: 03/B] Romae Vaticanus 1209.
saec. IV, in 4, membr, in quinionibus, foll. 759, ex quibus foll. 142 Novum Testamentum continetur; alt. 27 vel 28 cm, lat. 27 vel 28 cm (olim maiora erant haec folia); ternis columnis et lineis 42 in singulis paginis; 16–18 litteris in singulis lineis; membrana tenerrima; litterae unciales parvae simplices purae continue scriptae nec spiritibus neque accentibus a prima manu ornatae sunt; apostrophus invenitur hic illic in Novo Testamento; interpunctio rarissima est et plerumque parvo vacuo spatio compensata (de interpunctione re vera a manu prima adhibita cf Tischendorf. Cod. Vat. praef. p. xix.xxi); ϊ et ϋ saepe ita; litterae maiores initiales non adhibentur sed nonnunquam excedit littera novi capitis prima paulum litterarum seriem; litterae minores sub finem linearum sunt eiusdem formae atque aliae; signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere Testamento citantur; compendia usitata saepe non adhibita sunt; errores ex itacismo abundant, praesertim litteris ει pro ι positis; formae “Alexandrinae” usurpantur; non habet codex Amm, Eus, Euth; praebet tamen capitum divisionem in evangeliis numeris minio scriptis sibi propriam, nisi quod et in codice Ξ invenitur,Mt 170 Mc 62 Lc 152 Io 80; in actibus est divisio duplex 36 et 69 capitum, et cum divisione 69 consentiunt fere capita 42 quae ad priorem actuum partem in codice Sinaitico adscribuntur; de divisione vetustiore in capita 36 vide supra, p. 155 sq. In epistulis cum catholicis tum Pauli sunt sectionum numeri divisionis vetustioris adscripti nisi ad 2 Pe (vide supra, p. 156); memorabile hoc est quod Pauli epistulae tanquam unum continuum opus dividuntur, unde per numeros constat epistulam ad Hebraeos in codice priore aliquo, unde numeri fluxerunt, post epistulam ad Galatas stetisse; inscriptiones et subscriptiones simplicissimae sunt; lineae ad paragraphorum initium notandum passim additae sunt in margine exteriore; saeculo fere decimo vel undecimo rescripsit aliquis textum atramento novo, addidit spiritus et accentus, eo autem modo ut quae verba vel litterae ei displicerent neque atramento rescriberet neque accentibus vel spiritibus ornaret; litteras maiores ad initium librorum manus posterior in margine pinxit: continet utrumque Testamentum; semper defuerunt Maccabaeorum libri; nunc desunt Gen 1:1–46:28 Ps 105:27–137:6 et in Novo Testamento He 9:14 ριει την συνειδησιν — υμων 13:25 1 et 2Ti Tit Philem Apoc; quae ex Hebr et Apoc desunt, supplevit manus saeculi decimi quinti ex codice cardinalis Bessarionis; textus est optimae notae quamquam ut Sinaiticus ita et codex Vaticanus erroribus scribae scatet; teste Tischendorfio scripserunt codicem hunc tres scribae, quorum unus Novum Testamentum totum scripsit qui idem folia nonnulla in codice Sinaitico scripsit (cf supra, p. 346); correctus est codex a duabus manibus quarum altera διορδωτὴς B2 signata eiusdem fere aetatis atque B* sive manus prima fuit, altera B3 iam supra notata saeculi decimi vel undecimi fuit; manus alia posterior notas liturgicas addidit; textus primi est ordinis; vv. cl. Westcottus Hortiusque eum optimum praedicant et fere totum, nisi in Paul ubi lectiones Occidentales inveniuntur, Prae-Syriacum; certe cum codice א testimonium praestantissimum de textu praebet.Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:358-360). Libronix.
Only part of the above is related to our inquiries, however for future convenience the section is fully included from the textual criticism post. It can be found from Gregory's edition here:
Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (1884)
edited by Constantin von Tischendorf
Note that the "edited by Constantin von Tischendorf" in Gregory's edition is, in general, not quite the whole story.
Vaticanus Retracing - Paul Canart appeals to a "critical consensus" - 9th to 11th century
On the retracing, Paul Canart, who has been the Vatican's expert on Vaticanus codicology and palaeography, says there is a "critical consensus" between the 9th and 11th century ...
"The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus." (2000)
Philip Barton Payne and Paul Canart
A scribe in the Middle Ages,2 apparently concerned with fading, traced over the original ink of every letter or word of Vaticanus unless it appeared to be incorrect.3
2 Critical consensus dates this between the ninth and eleventh century, cf.
T.C. Skeat, "The Codex Vaticanus in the Fifteenth Century," JTS 35 (1984) 461;
James Hardy Ropes, The Text of Acts, Vol. III of The Beginning of Christianity. Part I The Acts of the Apostles (ed. by FJ. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: MacMillan, 1926) xl;
Frederick G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: MacMillan, 1926) 80;
William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939) plate XIV.
Note 3 also references as retracing resources:
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 47;
C.E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1902) 49;
So by going through these resources, you would think there would be a clear "critical consensus" stating the reasons for the 9th to 11th century claim.
The first one I could find of the people listed is good old Skeat, whose "consensus" analysis actually says:
The Collected Biblical Writings of Theodore Cressy Skeat (2004)
The Codex Vaticanus in the Fifteenth Century (1984)
This clearly does nothing for the "consensus" support."I do not deal here with the re-inking of the manuscript which if correctly assigned to the ninth or tenth century must be quite unconnected with the fifteenth century restoration."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles: Volume III: The Text of Acts (2002 ed)
James Hardy Ropes
From the Pierre Batiffol (1861-1929) related note we have:Codex B has been corrected at more than one date, but the discrimination of the several correctors by Fabiani (Roman edition, vol. vi. 1881) is unsatisfactory, and a critical investigation of the corrections throughout the manuscript is much to be desired.2 Some revision of the Roman editors' results is to be found in Tischendorf's apparatus. The designations are to be regarded as referring to groups of correctors, rather than to individuals. The earliest corrections (B1 and in part B2) are doubtless those of the diorthotes, added before the codex was sent out from the scriptorium.3 Others (B3) are commonly ascribed to a hand of the tenth or eleventh century,4 who added the breathings and accents, and re-inked the already faded letters of the text, leaving untouched letters and words which he disapproved. ... This work of B3, it should be noticed, in all its branches is held by Fabiani to have been done in the early fifteenth century, and to have included long Greek interpretative scholia, Latin notes in Greek letters, and the sixty-two supplementary pages, but this is doubtful.1
2 1 See A. Ceriani, Rendiconti, Reale Intituto Lombardo, Series II. vol. xxi., 1888, pp. 545 f.
3 (irrelevant to the retracing - Hort note discussed)
4 The date (ninth to eleventh century) is assigned to B3 chiefly because of the character of the minuscules into which he occasionally lapses, On the correctors see especially Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, 1867, pp. xxiii-xxviii.
1 Note Batiffol's observation, mentioned above, p. xxxii
This gives us a lot more info. Clearly there is a terminus post quem of about 800 AD, due to the scribe who did the overwriting also writing some minuscule script. This does very little to resolve the issues between 900 to 1100 to the 1500s.... The restoration of the codex by retracing the letters, etc., is commonly associated with the work of a certain corrector who occasionally lapsed into minuscules that betray his date as the tenth or eleventh century (Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, p. xxvii); but as to the locality whore these corrections were made there seems to be no evidence. The Roman editors,'Prolegomena,' 1831, p. xvii, hold the re-inking and the addition of breathings and accents to be the work of the scribe (Clemens monachus) who, they think, supplied the missing portions of the codex in the early fifteenth century.
Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1912)
Frederic George Kenyon
hmmm... no reasons given, simply the "authority" of Tischendorf (who was disagreeing with the historic analysis, which had even named the retracing monk from the 15th century)Corrections have been made by two hands—one a contemporary or nearly contemporary reviser (B2), while the other (B3), who retraced the whole, is placed by Tischendorf in the tenth or eleventh century.
Also from Kenyon:
Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, Being a History of the Text and Its Translations, 1895
Frederic George Kenyon
===================================Unfortunately, the beauty of the original writing has been spoilt by a later corrector, who, thinking perhaps that the original ink was becoming faint, traced over every letter afresh, omitting only those letters and words which he believed to be incorrect. Thus it is only in the case of such words that we see the original writing untouched and uninjured.
Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament
Charles Edward Hammond
https://archive.org/stream/outlinesoftextua1890hamm#page/44/mode/2up (1890 5th edition)
Hammond changed it from Scrivener to some in the later edition. And changes it to "Tischendorf's and Dr. Hort's" (although Hort had close to zero actual ms. experience). There is discussion of a Matthew 16:19 correction by the retracer.3. A third hand, when the writing had faded from age, inked over the whole, added the accents and breathings, and corrected it throughout by a copy of his own time. That the accents are due to this corrector is evident from the fact that where he omitted to ink over the letters or syllables, as he frequently did by way of correction, the accents are not inserted. He imitates for the most part the writing of the original where he adds anything; yet in some places, where he was pressed for room, he uses forms of letters and abbreviations that belong in Tischendorf's(and Dr. Hort's)judgment to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Scrivener (some) however would place him two centuries earlier. (continues)
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Palaeography (1984) Bruce Metzger
===================================There appear to have been two scribes of the Old Testament and one of the New Testament, and two correctors, one (B2) about contemporary with the scribes, the other (B3) of about the tenth or eleventh century. p. 74
Note one problem in the chart from Tim Finney. The B3 of Tischendorf is now given as 6/7 century. Plan to write him on this question, since B3 is frequently referred to as the enhancer. This is so "up in the air" that Finney, looking at some features, even asks:The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1999)
Timothy John Finney
The writing is in three columns and has been retraced by a later scribe dated to the tenth-eleventh century by Martini (1968, xii). Page numbers are written in the top margin in Arabic numerals. The uncial portion of the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 1.1 to 9.14) occupies pages 1512 to 1518. The minuscule part is a more recent addition which Martini (1968, note 8) attributes to a fifteenth century scribe. The minuscule part is not transcribed here.
The retracing increases the difficulty of identifying correctors. According to Martini (1968, xii), alterations may be attributed to the first and second hands but 'determining which hands thereafter amended the codex or adorned it with various notes still needs further investigation.' Martini (1968. note 8) also writes:
Tischendorf distinguished two principal correctors, [one of whom] amended the whole work at the time of writing, and a third hand in the Middle Ages, who may be identical with the one who rewrote the whole codex in the tenth-eleventh century.
hmmm...Perhaps the order of Tischendorfs B2 and B3 should be reversed?... I think that the B2 corrections may even be later than the B3 corrections.
Does this separate category mean the date should be revisited? Or does the whole situation about minuscule print remain the same. Questions for Finney.I have created a separate category for alterations that can be attributed to the scribe who retraced the manuscript in the tenth or eleventh century. Words in which letters have been left untraced are treated as alterations by the fourth hand. This is at variance with Tischendorf who groups such cases with more conventional alterations by the third hand. Tischendorf uses the labels Bb et-c or B2 et B3 for any place where an
alteration by the second hand is confirmed by the third. My adoption of a separate category for the retracing scribe means that such labels could be interpreted as alterations by the second hand that are confirmed by the fourth hand.
On p. 82, you have a discussion of the 4th century dating commonly given for Vaticanus. This is not demonstrated in any way.As already mentioned, there are questions concerning the number and order of correctors of Codex Vaticanus. A fresh examination of the scribes and correctors of Codex Vaticanus of the type made by Milne and Skeat for Codex Sinaiticus would be most worthwhile. Ropes (1926, xl), Skeat himself (1984, 465), and Martini (1968, xii) have already called for such a study.
Which is an exceedingly thin analysis for what is the most fundamental question.Date and provenance
Concerning date, 'the first half of the fourth century is generally accepted' (Kenyon, 1949, 86).
See Michaelis and P. C. Sense. This is by no means a proof of 4th century origin. At most, it is an evidence to be considered.The text of the Greek Bible: a student's handbook (illustrated) (1949 ed, reprinted 1953, to net 2015)
With regard to its date and place of origin, the extreme simplicity of its writing and the arrangement in three columns point to a very early place among vellum uncials, and the first half of the fourth century is generally accepted.
Pics for the Palaeographic Analysis
William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939) plate XIV
Tischendorf Vaticanus edition
Cross-referencing spots from articles above with photos
Why the misuscule writing means c. 10th century or later
A Companion to the Uspenski Gospels'It may be mentioned that the earliest known minuscule Greek manuscript bearing a date is a copy of the four Gospels, now in the Public Library of Leningrad, with its all-important colophon dated 7 May 6343 (= a.d. 835) by the monk Nicolaus, later abbot of the Studium. This manuscript has raised problems for scholars; palaeographically the handwriting appears to be loo mature and fully developed to stand at the beginning of the minuscule period, yet no forerunners have been recognized among extant manuscripts. For a discussion, sec Aubrey Diller, 'A Companion to the Uspenski Gospels', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xlix (1956), pp. 332-5
Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger, 1968 2nd ed, p. 9 .