the Vaticanus retracing - latinization - Alexandrinus - dating - Wieland Willker on washing

[Steven Avery]

Resources from 2008 and 2013 Textual forum - Vaticanus Retracing

[textualcriticism] Correctors' Hands in Codex Vaticanus
Wieland Willker - Nov 7, 2008

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo!

groups.yahoo.com

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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5881

[textualcriticism] Vaticanus - "the entire text has been overwritten by a 15th century scribe"
Steven Avery - Sept 13, 2013
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/topics/8102

Peter Head
"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
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8181

[textualcriticism] Vaticanus retracing - 15th century date traces to Enrico Fabiani, by monk Clement
Steven Avery - Nov 12, 2013
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8176

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
https://books.google.com/books?id=2XYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA358

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
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/NovT-Payne.pdf
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2000NovT-Vaticanus_umlauts_1Cor14_34-35.pdf

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)
https://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=PA130

"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."

This clearly does nothing for the "consensus" support.

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

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles: Volume III: The Text of Acts (2002 ed)
James Hardy Ropes
https://books.google.com/books?id=89ZKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR40

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

From the Pierre Batiffol (1861-1929) related note we have:

... 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.

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.

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

Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament (1912)
Frederic George Kenyon
https://books.google.com/books?id=jCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA80

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.

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)

Also from Kenyon:

Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, Being a History of the Text and Its Translations, 1895
Frederic George Kenyon
http://books.google.com/books?id=DI4RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134

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)
https://books.google.com/books?id=XW6EVLfVBrkC&pg=PA44-IA1 (1876)

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)

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.

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

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

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

The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1999)
Timothy John Finney
http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf
p. 79-81

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.

Correctors
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.

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:

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.

hmmm...

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.

Does this separate category mean the date should be revisited? Or does the whole situation about minuscule print remain the same. Questions for Finney.

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.

On p. 82, you have a discussion of the 4th century dating commonly given for Vaticanus. This is not demonstrated in any way.

Date and provenance
Concerning date, 'the first half of the fourth century is generally accepted' (Kenyon, 1949, 86).

Which is an exceedingly thin analysis for what is the most fundamental question.

The text of the Greek Bible: a student's handbook (illustrated) (1949 ed, reprinted 1953, to net 2015)
http://www.katapi.org.uk/GBibleText/Ch3.html

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.

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.

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

Pics for the Palaeographic Analysis

Possibilities:

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

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 .

A Companion to the Uspenski Gospels'
http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fbyzs.1956.49.issue-2$002fbyzs.1956.49.2.332$002fbyzs.1956.49.2.332.xml

 

[Steven Avery]

theories of dating manuscripts

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
by Peter van Minnen
http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

First, let's note the big lie:

These manuscripts dated from the fourth and fifth centuries and presented a text that was at least free from the accretions of a later age

These so-called later age accretions are invariably testified to by ECW and versions dating to the Ante-Nicene period. On this point, we simply have another hortian dupe, who has never looked at the supposed accretions and studied their textual history.

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

Now let's touch on a couple of palaeographic points:

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

How do we know these manuscripts are so very early? How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates. In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate.

Wrong. Some tests are accurate, which is why BAM from Berlin subjected the Dead Sea Scrolls to extensive materials and ink testing.

No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written.

The claims for precise dating of papyri have been exploded in the last years. See, e.g. the writings of Brent Nongbri. The latest possible date, the terminus ante quem, is often totally unrealistic, and papyri that are placed in the 3rd century, e.g. may well be hundreds of years later.

This idea that the papyri uncials are well anchored, (supplying precise dating to papyri and parchment uncials) has basically been demolished in the last years.

Plus, there is often a circularity involved, where the early dating of the great uncials is itself used as an anchor.

These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. As a rule New Testament manuscripts on papyrus are not. A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.

Thus, the writer does allow that the actual New Testament documents that are dated early rarely have an internal basis, but he severely overstates the papyri art.

Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation. Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.

Plus, the whole theory is immediately contradicted by the tendency to write and copy in the old style, which applies even more to Biblical writing, which have an inherent cultural sensitivity to retaining the earlier format. And this is without even considering the phenomenon of replicas and forgeries.

And I'm rather amazed at the 30s and 80s claim, my own handwriting has varied rather significantly, but not based on any cultural styles of writing. Writing from the 1950s that I have seen could have, from others, could easily have been written yesterday.

Simply look at:

1950's, Handwriting Fonts
http://www.1001fonts.com/1950s+handwriting-fonts.html

Any of these could easily be written today.

This is the lack of time-symmetry in palaeography. Nobody can write in a future style (if you saw those writings, you might be able to say they, or some of them, were not 1900 if you were skilled). People can and do frequently write in an earlier style.

 

[Steven Avery]

the washing of Vaticanus

Wieland Willker

Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
http://www.willker.de/wie/Vaticanus/general.html

My pet theory:
I think that it is possible the the codex has been washed off to create a palimpsest.
That a codex ink is fading throughout so strongly is quite exceptional. I think it is possible that at some point someone decided to wash off the ink to create 'recycled' blank parchment. For some reason it was decided later to keep the text and codex and someone had to retrace everything.
Well, just my private speculation ...

Note the minimal assertion about the date of origin.

• First half of the 4th CE: the codex is written.

Also:

History of the codex
The codex is noted in the first inventory of the Vatican library in 1475 (as " Biblia ex membranis in rubeo").

This interp is contested by Epp, who affirms the 1481 catalog.

• 4th to 6th CE: small Greek chapter numbers added
• 5th to 7th CE: Symbols in Acts/Catholics added.
• 7th - 8th CE: Large Greek chapter numbers added

Is there really any solid palaeographic basis for this numbers? Would be a good question for Brent Nongbri and others who actually are palaeographic professionals.

10th or 11th CE: Complete text reinforced, Skeat: "before the ninth". It is quite a mystery why the text has been so carefully enhanced in this period.

See his palimpsest speculation above.

Is it possible that the reinforcement happened in the 15th CE? As a matter of principle, yes. But the scribe must have had extraordinary skills then. He writes very good uncial letters and the corrections by his hand are also good. This reinforcement must have been incredibly time consuming.

However, the rcc scholars even named the monk who did the work. (see the textual forum posts above, later that can be brought to the thread)

So far, there is no solid basis for the retracing occurring in the 9th-11th century.

It appears to be a rather casual Tischendorf assignment that has never been confirmed by a single true palaeograph. (Peter Head simply considers it "plausible", an extremely weak non-confirmation. Martini, 1968, above, could be checked.)

Nor has there been any solid basis for the 4th century production.

Those who have carefully pointed out that this is an invalid conclusion (Michaelis on Alexandrinus http://www.purebibleforum.com/showpost.php?p=404&postcount=3 and P. C. Sense on the uncials in general, noted on this thread. Likely there are other various others.) have not been answered.

 

[Steven Avery]

Michaelis and latinization

Michaelis offers a lot of historical info. He also discusses whether there was Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc influence on the original Alexandrinus ms. He adds interesting points like a Sahidic connection pointed out by Woide. https://books.google.com/books?id=Kis-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA197 On Vaticanus he offers the history of the Latinization question.

The Question of Dating the Alexandrinus and Vaticanus Manuscripts

Generally, Alexandrinus was seen as from the fourth to the eighth century, some even later although that was countered by Michaelis, while Vaticanus was "assigned it different dates, from the fourth to the seventh" (Jackob Gottlieb Planck, Introduction to Sacred Philology, 1834, p. 219, https://books.google.com/books?id=109GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA219 ). Planck is interesting partly because of the explanation of how the readings were considered so important for the dates (a very fudgy approach, think of the 2427 history.) Earlier, two very respected assessments of Vaticanus had come from Montfaucon and Blanchini, which were fifth century, maybe sixth.

Exactly why the flexibility in date assessment changed is a point that I would like to determine. To what extent was it Tischendorf and Hort? How did Burgon and Scrivener contribute. From 1750 to about 1850 it appears that these manuscripts were given a certain flexibility in dating, which makes sense with the lack of external markers or science on the manuscript and ink.

Sinaiticus Handled Differently than Alexandrinus

While Alexandrinus had a vibrant discussion, Sinaiticus discussion was suppressed. The German and Russian scholars who saw a later date were simply ignored by the Tischendorf-Hort bandwagon.

Scholars on Alexandrinus

Some of the principles who had been involved in the discussion on Alexandrinus:

Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lucaris http://orthodoxwiki.org/Cyril_Lucaris

Matthaeus Muttis
contemporary, friend and deacon of Cyrillus, wrote 1664 letter to Martin Bogdan, ms. brought from Mt. Athos

Patrick Young (Junius) (1584-1652) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Young
collation - publication of 1 and 2 Clement in 1633, Greek with Latin translation, 1637 Catena in Job

James Ussher (1581-1656) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

Jean Morin (1591-1659) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Morin_(theologian)

Brian Walton (1600-1661) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walton_(bishop)
collation - Scrivener in Six Lectures points out that Alexander Huish examined it for Walton's Polyglott

John Fell (1625-1686) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fell_(clergyman)
collation

Richard Simon (1638-1712) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simon

John Mill (1645-1707) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill_(theologian)
collation

John Ernest Grabe (1666-1711) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernest_Grabe
(Oxon. 1707-1720 edition) LXX-1707

Casmir Oudin (1638-1719) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Oudin

Gerhard von Mastricht (1639-1721)
canons of criticism

Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_de_Montfaucon
"an astute scholar who founded the discipline of palaeography, as well as being an editor of works of the Fathers of the Church" -
5th or 6th century dating (check details) Palaeographia Graerca.

Richard Bentley (1662-1742) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bentley
worked on edition, never published, collation is at Trinity College, Cambridge, per Scrivener

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Albrecht_Bengel

John Johann Wettstein (1693-1754) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Wettstein

Giuseppe Bianchini (Blanchini) (1704-1764) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Bianchini

Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Michaelis

Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Salomo_Semler

Carl Gottfried Godfrey Woide (1725-1790) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gottfried_Woide
1786 NT facsimile, British Museum printing, type by Joseph Jackson, printer John Nichols (pic in Bowman)

Gottlieb Lebrecht Spohn (1756-1794) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Lebrecht_Spohn

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Griesbach

Thomas Kipling (1745/45-1822) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kipling

Gottlieb Jakob Planck (1751-1831) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Jakob_Planck

Herbert Marsh (1757-1839) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marsh
translation with his notes of Michaelis

Johann Martin Augustin Scholz (1794-1852) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Martin_Augustin_Scholz

Henry Harvey Baber (1775-1869) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Baber
1819 facsimile (1812-1828)

"In 1811 Baber issued a proposal for the publication of the whole of the Old Testament from the Codex Alexandrinus,"* in which he referred to the great risk of destruction to which all such manuscripts were liable, and the fact that Lucar had given it to Charles I to preserve it 'against the barbarous fury and jealous spirit of Mahometan superstition" - Bowman

Frederick Field (1801-1885) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Field_(scholar)
Septuagint 1859 - Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge

Constantine Tischendorf (1815-1874) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_von_Tischendorf

Jacobson, Tischendorf and Lightfoot edit the Epistles of Clement

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Prideaux_Tregelles

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Henry_Ambrose_Scrivener

Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904)

Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Maunde_Thompson

Fredric George Kenyon (1863-1952) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_G._Kenyon

Theodore Cressy Skeat (1907-2003) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Cressy_Skeat

William Andrew Smith - http://crbmi.org/contact/

Possible adds Cavallo, Burgon, Burkitt, Grotius
Metzger Hatch McKendrick, Pattie .. maybe Elliot

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

Books and Journals

Codex alexandrinus. #.: Novum Testamentum gr?ce ex antiquissimo codice alexandrino a C. G. Woide olim descriptum (1860)
Charles Godfrey Woide, Benjamin Harris Cowper
https://books.google.com/books?id=of82AAAAMAAJ

"The material is thin, fine, and very beautiful vellum, often discoloured at the edges, which have been injured by time, but more by the ignorance or carelessness of the modern binder, who has not always spared the text, especially at the upper inner margin. - p. iii"

Since its arrival in this country, the volume has been rebound, the leaves have been numbered, and the modern Chapters have been indicated; — these figures are all 'the work of Patrick Junius. The nature of the ink, and the great age of the manuscript, have in many places caused the partial or almost total disappearance of the characters, and they cannot be read without the aid of a lens and in a strong light. Moreover, the ferruginous matter contained in the ink has produced an infinite number of minute holes in the parchment, giving it the appearance of lacework, and which occasionally, but not so often as could be expected, add seriously to the difficulty of the reading. These holes are not in all the leaves but only in a portion of them, and the vellum is frequently more legible on one side than on the other. p. v-vi

Herbert John Mansfield Milne (1888-1965)

Edward Maunde Thompson , (ed.), Facsimile of the vols. Codex Alexandrtnus (London, 1881, 1883, 1879)

The Codex Alexandrinus (Royal A1S. i.D. V —VIII.) in reduced photographic facsimile. Introduction by F. G. Kenyon (London, 1909, etc.). (between 1909 and 1957 printed)
https://archive.org/details/codexalexandrin02unknuoft - Vol 2

Matthew Spinka, 'Acquisition of the Codex Alexandrinus by England', Journal of Religion, xvi (1936), pp. 10-29.

The Codex Alexandrinus and the Alexandrian Greek type, British Library Journal 24 no. 2 (autumn 1998 [issued Oct. 2000]), pp. 169-83
http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1998articles/pdf/article12.pdf
John H. Bowman - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/bowman

A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (2014)
William Andrew Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ

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

Codex Bezae notes

1793 Codex Bezae fascimile edition - Thomas Kipling - info in Bowman
D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: an early Christian manuscript and its text (Cambridge, 1992).

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

Books and Journals

H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, 2nd edn. (London, 1955, repr. 1963),
"limp, dead" - see Sinaiticus comparison page

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

Manuscript Resources

Thomas Smith Pattie (b. 1936)
Manuscripts of the Bible: Greek Bibles in the British Library, rev. ed. (London, 1995), pp. 25~31;

James Keith Elliott (b. 1943)
A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Cambridge, 1989), PP- 32-4

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

Bibliographies

British Library Digitisation
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_1_d_viii

Guiglielmo Cavallo, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica (Florence: Le Monnier, 1967), pp. 77-81.
G. Cavallo and H. Maehler, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period A.D. 300-800 (London, 1987), p. 56.

William Andrew Smith on bibliography - Parker misses Cavallo
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105

To date, the must descriptive palaeographic analysis of the codex has been provided by Cavallo. In 1967 he put forth the position that there were three hands at work in the NT:
"Tale possibilita, a giudicare da fondamenti graficostilistici, va tradotta quasi in certezza, e quindi sarci del parere di attribuire senz'altro a tre scribe l'Allesandrino. 12"

 

[Steven Avery]

Cowper reviews antiquity scholarship dates

Cowper gives a fine review of the dates:

Codex Alexandrinus. Ἡ Καινη Διαθηκη. Novum Testamentum Graece ex antiquissimo codice Alexandrino (1860)
Benjamin Harris Cowper, Carl Gottfried Woide
https://books.google.com/books?id=yeJUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP31

We now come to the question of its antiquity. Patrick Junius adopted the opinion that it belongs to the time soon after the council of Nicea. Archbishop Usher thought it was written after the time of Basil the Great who died A. D. 378. Morin, who died in 1659, thought it more than twelve hundred years old. Walton supposed it as old as the Vatican Codex, or even older. Grabe ascribed it to the latter part of the fourth century. Montfaucon believed it to be of the fifth or sixth century. Mill imagined it dated almost from the formation of the Canon. Mastricht ascribed it to a much later date. Casimir Oudin thought it not older than the tenth century. Bengel owned that it could have been written as late as the sixth century or even later, for which opinion Wetstein seems to plead. Semler referred it to the seventh century; David Michaelis to the eighth. Tischendorf says "scriptus videtur post medium saec. V"; and his opinion is deserving of note because he says "codicem ipsum inspeximus indagantes omnia quae ad palaeographiam spectant, et ad definiendam codieis aetatem faciunt'. To this opinion assent is perhaps now commonly given; thus Dr. Tregelles in the work already quoted says that it was probably written after the introduction of the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons, and before the general use of the Euthalian and other divisions of the Epistles; he also regards the additions of the Clementine Epistles as significative of a considerable antiquity. He thinks it probably of the fifth century on palaeographic grounds, and ascribes it to perhaps the middle of the century or a little later.

It is impossible and unnecessary to refer to all the opinions which have been advanced respecting the age of this manuscript: what has been said will suffice to show that critics have widely differed on the subject. We shall therefore call attention to a few facts which have been appealed to, and conclude with the statement of our own views.

That the Codex was produced at an early date may be inferred from the mere fact that it is an uncial manuscript, but that it is not so ancient as tradition represents it is certain, indeed almost demonstrable.p. xxiii-xxiv

From these it has been inferred that the Codex was written for the Acoemitae, and cannot therefore be earlier than the 5th century, when a sect of monks so called existed. . Woide thinks that this conclusion is unfounded, and therefore that this list does not prove the recent origin of the manuscript. p. xxv-xxvi

Most of the facts which bear upon the date of the Alexandrine Codex, have been alluded to in the course of the preceding pages, and after a careful endeavour to analyse them in the light of the manuscript itself, we have arrived at the conclusion, that it was not written before the council of Ephesus in 431 A. D. We therefore believe it to be at least a hundred years subsequent to the council of Nice. If asked for a still more definite opinion we should not hesitate to fix on the middle of the fifth century as the proximate date. The absence of the sections in the Acts and Epistles must be considered in connection with the presence of other phenomena, and while some circumstances would suggest orle date, and others another, we believe that the one we have adopted comes very near the truth. In our endeavour to decide this curious question, we have not forgotten the quarter of the world from which the manuscript appears to have come, where such documents are very slowly influenced by atmospheric operations. There are in the British Museum other documents from Egypt of even greater antiquity, and some of the most ancient show the effects of age even less than this. Nor have we lost sight of the character of the penmanship, the state of the text, the number and order of the books, and other circumstances, which all savour of a very early origin; and it is marvellous how some can have attached so little importance to them. The conditions fulfilled in its production, and the principles on which it is based, and other matters which can only be appreciated by those who are accustomed to handle ancient manuscripts, and who have examined this, compel us to adhere to the opinion we have reached as to its date. On palaeographic grounds alone, we should be led to this conclusion, but in addition to these we have the advantage of many characteristic and peculiar features of the text and its accompaniments, all of which point to about the middle of the fifth century). p. xxix-xxx

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

Scrivener in sixth lectures especially emphasizes the inclusion of Clement, in arguing for a similar, yet slightly earlier, date, and gives a rather lightly supported latest date, the terminus ante quem.

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Six Lectures
https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49

In the Acts and Epistles we find no such chapter divisions, nor indeed did these, whose authorship is ascribed to Euthalius Bishop of Sulci, come into vogue before the middle of the fifth century. Since, besides the Eusebian canons, Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of the great S. Athanasius on the Psalms to Marcellinus, it cannot well be considered earlier than A.D. 373, the year when that great champion of the Faith was lost to the Church. The presence of the Epistle of Clement, which was once read in Churches like the works of Barnabas and Hermas contained in Cod. א, recalls us to a period when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars not quite settled, that is, about the time of the Councils of Laodicea (364) and of Carthage (397). Codex A was certainly written a generation after Codd. א and B, but it may still belong to the fourth century; it cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth.

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

Here, the immediate context is Thecla, Richard Simon makes an important point:

"the copy which is commonly called the Alexandrine ... Some of the English nation, after Cyrillus Lucar, have observed that that book, was written more than thirteen hundred years ago by an Egyptian lady called Thecla. But they produce no certain proofs of this antiquity. It was the interest of the Patriarch Cyrillus, who made a present of the that Bible to the King of England, to make it as ancient as he could... I cannot give full assurance, that that manuscript called the Alexandrine, and that of the Vatican, cannot be reckoned in the number of those which were writ out by Latin amaneuses in those ancient times."