Tobit - Sinaiticus and Vatopedi 319 (3:6-6:16) - Polyglotte by Christian J. Wagner

Steven Avery

Administrator
Polyglotte Tobit Synapse
https://books.google.je/books?id=I-DVEgyp0x8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=I-DVEgyp0x8C&pg=PA7

https://books.google.com/books?id=I-DVEgyp0x8C&pg=PA1
1672973042609.png

p. 2
1672973115928.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://books.google.com/books?id=I-DVEgyp0x8C&pg=PR29
Polyglotte Tobit Synopse (2003)
Christian J Wagner

p. xxi
3.1.2 Zur Textform GII
In der GII-Kolumne der Synopse ist der Text ebenfalls nach der Göttinger Septuaginta abgedruckt 36, dem cod. S zugrunde liegt, anders aber als die Cambridger Ausgabe nicht damit absolut identisch ist. 37 Nach Hanhart „ist es innerhalb der Textform GII nicht möglich, anhand der Texte ihrer drei Zeugen S, La und in 3:6-6:16 (Greek-toutou) 319, einen Grundtext zu rekonstruieren. Als Grundtext muß der Text von S gelten, der in bestimmten Fällen nach La und nach 319 korrigiert werden kann, denen aber selbständige und hinsichtlich der Priorität nicht bestimmbare Textelemente dieser beiden Zeugen gegenüberstehen." 38 Ein Sonderfall, der zur Einbindung von 319 in den Text von cod. S berechtigt, liegt in der großen, offensichtlich abschreibbedingten Auslassung in cod. S 4,7-19 vor. Hier wird die Lücke mit dem Text der Handschrift 319 geschlossen, die erstmals von Hanhart herangezogen und (von 4,7-18 in akzentuierter Form) in den Apparat II aufgenommen wurde. Da 319 nur von 3,6- 6,16 (Greek - toutou) trotz mancher Abweichung gegenüber cod. S einen Text bietet, der - nicht selten übereinstimmend mit der altlateinischen Überlieferung - der GII Textform zuzuweisen ist, konnte die zweite große Lücke in cod. S (13,6i—10b) nicht ergänzt werden. Die in Qumran zutage getretenen Tobit-Fragmente (4Q196-200) bestätigen nun an nicht wenigen Stellen, dass manche Variante von 319 gegen cod. S nicht a priori als sekundär gelten darf:

In the GII column of the synopsis, the text is also printed according to the Göttingen Septuagint 36, the cod. S, but unlike the Cambridge edition is not absolutely identical to it. 37 According to Hanhart, “It is not possible within the text form GII to reconstruct a basic text on the basis of the texts of its three witnesses S, La and in 3:6-6:16 (Greek-toutou) 319. The text of S must be regarded as the basic text, which can be corrected in certain cases according to La and according to 319, but which are contrasted with independent text elements of these two witnesses whose priority cannot be determined." 38 A special case that led to the integration of 319 in the text justified by cod. S, is due to the large omission in cod. S 4.7-19, obviously due to copying. Here the gap is closed with the text of manuscript 319, which Hanhart used for the first time and (from 4.7-18 in accented form) was included in Apparatus II. Since 319 only offers a text from 3.6-6.16 (Greek - toutou), despite some deviations from cod The second large gap in cod. S (13.6i-10b) could not be filled in. The Tobit fragments (4Q196-200) that came to light in Qumran (4Q196-200) now confirm in not a few places that some variants of 319 against codex S must not be considered secondary a priori:
1672974747078.png

1672973383945.png

1672973462361.png

1672973509347.png

1672973644253.png



p. xxix
1672973273175.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
"a fundamental lack of critical interest in the issue of provenance."

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

Kipp Davis, Ira Rabin, Ines Feldman, Myriam Krutzsch, Hasia Rimon, Årstein Justnes, Torleif Elgvin, and Michael Langlois,

Ludvik A. Kjeldsberg

Enoch
J. Harold Ellens, Isaac W. Oliver, Jason von Ehrenkrook, James Waddel, and Jason M. Zurawski,

Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar


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

A. Justnes, "Fake Fragments, Flexible Provenances: Eight Aramaic 'Dead Sea Scrolls' from the 21st Century," pp. 242-271 in Vision, Narrative, and Wisdom in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran: Essays from the Copenhagen Symposium, 14–15 August, 2017 (eds. M. Bundvad & K. Siegismund; Leiden: Brill, 2020).

Fake Fragments, Flexible Provenances: Eight Aramaic “Dead Sea Scrolls” from the 21st Century (2019)
Årstein Justnes
https://uia.brage.unit.no/uia-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2637010/Justnes.pdf?sequence=2

Introduction

The eight Aramaic fragments discussed in this article form part of a bigger story. Since 2002 more than 75 “new” Dead Sea Scroll fragments have surfaced on the antiquities market.3 Recently, we have seen a growing consensus, especially,among younger scholars, that a majority of these are modern forgeries.4

3 For a comprehensive list of all the acquisitions known to us after 2002, see
Årstein Justnes and Ludvik A. Kjeldsberg,
“The Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments: A Tentative Timeline of Acquisitions,”
The Lying Pen of Scribes: Manuscript Forgeries and Counterfeiting Scripture in the Twenty-First Century, 7 June 2018, https://lyingpen.com/.

4 See first and foremost
Kipp Davis, Ira Rabin, Ines Feldman, Myriam Krutzsch, Hasia Rimon, Årstein Justnes, Torleif Elgvin, and Michael Langlois,
“Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century,” DSD 24 (2017): 189–228,

and Kipp Davis, “Caves of Dispute: Patterns of Correspondence and Suspicion in the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments,” DSD 24 (2017): 229–70. In the former article four of the eight Aramaic post-2002 fragments are dealt with at length, and it is argued that they are modern forgeries

(see also Michael Langlois, “Nine Dubious ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ Fragments from the Twenty-First Century,” The Blog of Michael Langlois, 8 October 2017,

Neuf fragments de “manuscrits de la mer Morte” douteux apparus au XXIe siècle
https://michaellanglois.fr/publicat...-la-mer-morte-douteux-apparus-au-xxie-siecle/ ).

See also Årstein Justnes and Torleif Elgvin,
“A Private Part of Enoch: A Forged Fragment of 1 Enoch 8:4–9:3,” in

Wisdom Poured Out Like Water: Studies on Jewish and Christian Antiquity in Honor of Gabriele Boccaccini, ed. J. Harold Ellens, Isaac W. Oliver, Jason von Ehrenkrook, James Waddel, and Jason M. Zurawski, DCLS 38 (Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2018), 195–203;

the recent lecture by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar,
“Beautiful Bookhands and Careless Characters: An Alternative Approach to the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
The 8th Annual Rabbi Tann Memorial Lecture, University of Birmingham, 24 January 2018,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=thB2tH1kwtU

; and the lectures from 2017 by
Kipp Davis, Torleif Elgvin, Michael Langlois, Ira Rabin, and Årstein Justnes
posted on the
Lying Pen blog (Årstein Justnes and Ludvik A. Kjeldsberg,
“Post-2002 Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments Online: A [Really Exhausting] Guide for the Perplexed,”
The Lying Pen of Scribes: Manuscript Forgeries and Counterfeiting Scripture in the Twenty-First Century, 26 June 2018, https://lyingpen.com/ ).

(Various pages)
https://lyingpen.com/2016/08/06/first-blog-post/
And Facebook forum
And Malcolm Choat
https://www.facebook.com/lyingpen/p...41828.454572478070681/473954689465793/?type=3
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
More from the article right above:

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

"a fundamental lack of critical interest in the issue of provenance."

“[...] there is [...] [a] thought-provoking, indeed troubling issue that looms large precisely because of the relative lack of explicit attention it receives in the volume: the issue of provenance.”

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


In both the Schoyen volume (Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois, eds., Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schoyen Collection, lsts 71 [London: T&T Clark, 2016]) and the Museum of the Bible volume (Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis, and Robert Duke, eds., Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection, Publications of Museum of the Bible 1 [Leiden: Brill, 2016]) there is a fundamental lack of critical interest in the issue of provenance. This is addressed in book reviews by Molly M. Zahn (Review of Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from the Scheyen Collection, ed. Torleif Elgvin, Kipp Davis, and Michael Langlois, DSD 24 [2017]: 307-9) and Arstein Justnes (Review of Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection, ed. Emanuel Tov, Kipp Davis, and Robert Duke, DSD [2017]): 310-12), cf. for instance Zahn on p. 308:

“[...] there is [...] [a] thought-provoking, indeed troubling issue that looms large precisely because of the relative lack of explicit attention it receives in the volume: the issue of provenance.”


See, however, the recent article by Dennis Mizzi and Jodi Magness, “Provenance vs. Authenticity: An Archaeological Perspective on the Post-2002 ‘Dead Sea Scrolls-Like' Fragments” in DSD 26 (2019): 135-69.


1673012563087.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Using Logos Software Apparatus Chapter 4 GII Recension
1675719161138.png

https://www.logos.com/product/4951/gottingen-septuagint

DESCRIPTIONS
1675720231810.png

1675720194128.png


https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se... Tobit&sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-topnav-_-Results

Only the shorter from Logos says GII.

And I think this is all Hanhart. (b. 1925)

It is tricky to read the actual Vatopedi 319 (600) manuscript.

A is Alexandrinus

Find spot where apparatus is decribed in the two Logos files.

CHAPTER 4
1 αργυριου] inter ρ 2º et ι parva ras in Bvid | Μηδειας Bab

2 εν εαυτω] αυτω A | om Τωβιαν A

4 εωρακεν Bb A

5 πασας τας ημ. cum praeced coniung Avid | μη 1º] pr και A | θελησης] + αμαρτανειν και Bab mg A | δικαιοσυνην] pr και A | ποιειν A

6 αληθιαν B*אA (-θειαν Bab)

7 σοι] σου A | om σε A | om και 2º

A Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Apparatus). Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cam
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sinaiticus






τηϲ εν παντι πρα 4 γματι μνηϲθητι αυτηϲ παιδιον οτι κινδυνουϲ πολλουϲ εωρακεν επι ϲοι ε τη κοιλια αυτηϲ κ(αι) οταν αποθανη θα ψον αυτην παρ ε μοι εν ενι ταφω 5 και παϲαϲ ταϲ ημε ραϲ ϲου παιδιον του κυ μνημονευε > και μη θεληϲηϲ α μαρτειν και παρα βηναι ταϲ εντολαϲ αυτου δικαιοϲυναϲ ποιει παϲαϲ ταϲ η> μεραϲ τηϲ ζωηϲ > ϲου και μη πορευ θηϲ ταιϲ οδοιϲ τηϲ 6 αδικιαϲ διοτι οι ποι ουντεϲ αληθιαν ευ οδωθηϲονται εν τοιϲ εργοιϲ αυτων 7 και παϲιν τοιϲ ποι ουϲιν δικαιοϲυνη

6 αδικιαϲ διοτι οι ποι ουντεϲ αληθιαν ευ οδωθηϲονται (LLittman) εν τοιϲ εργοιϲ αυτων
7 και παϲιν τοιϲ ποι ουϲιν δικαιοϲυνη (end of Sinaiticus)

1679584368063.png
 
Last edited:
Top