Steven Avery
Administrator
Ask the fellow who did the recent book or section on colophons.
Peter Tarras?
Peter Tarras?
Last edited:
Vaticanus Deuteronomy colophon compared to Mark cancel-sheet in Sinaiticus
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 70-71
Among Skeat’s persuasive arguments is the constant message that
no-one working in this area should forget that Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Vaticanus are from the same scriptorium, the common origins
of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been regarded as axi-
omatic from the days of Tischendorf through Lake to the present and
no responsible New Testament scholar should ignore this fact. Among
his proofs are:
i) The very close resemblance of the colophon design at the end of
Deuteronomy (in Codex Vaticanus) with that at the end of Mark
in Codex Sinaiticus.14 [ this Skeat identifies as his strongest argu-
ment and one which must be understood and recognised.]
ii) Possibly Codex Sinaiticus shares a scribe with Codex Vaticanus.
Two of their hands may be identical, this is a disputed point
because the re-inking of Codex Vaticanus at a later date (prob-
ably ninth-tenth centuries) makes it difficult to examine carefully
the hand of the original scribes. Tischendorf thought hand D of
Codex Sinaiticus was the same as hand B of Codex Vaticanus but
Milne and Skeat argued15 that the closest resemblance was between
scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus and scribe A of Codex Vaticanus and
that, even if they are not the same, “the identity of the scribal
tradition stands beyond dispute”. Cavallo agreed with Milne and
Skeat. However, this is not a point Skeat himself would now wish
to dwell upon.
[We must remember that the colophon designs were not re-inked,
although the lettering was.]
iii) Another relevant consideration is the fact that Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus both end their text of Mark with the same verse. One of
the features of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus is that they,
virtually alone among New Testament manuscripts, end Mark at
16:8 (even though it is plausible that the scribe of Codex Vaticanus
was hesitant to do so).16 Sinaiticus does not provide any evidence
for the continuing of the text after verse 8, and did not do so even
before the re-writing of the bifolium, the error which provoked
the re-writing being in the text of Luke 1.
14 Paris of Ihe relevanl pages are reproduced by Skeal in his JTS piece as Plale 1.
Among Skeat’s persuasive arguments is the constant message that
no-one working in this area should forget that Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Vaticanus are from the same scriptorium, the common origins
of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been regarded as axi-
omatic from the days of Tischendorf through Lake to the present and
no responsible New Testament scholar should ignore this fact. Among
his proofs are:
i) The very close resemblance of the colophon design at the end of
Deuteronomy (in Codex Vaticanus) with that at the end of Mark
in Codex Sinaiticus.14 [ this Skeat identifies as his strongest argu-
ment and one which must be understood and recognised.]
ii) Possibly Codex Sinaiticus shares a scribe with Codex Vaticanus.
Two of their hands may be identical, this is a disputed point
because the re-inking of Codex Vaticanus at a later date (prob-
ably ninth-tenth centuries) makes it difficult to examine carefully
the hand of the original scribes. Tischendorf thought hand D of
Codex Sinaiticus was the same as hand B of Codex Vaticanus but
Milne and Skeat argued15 that the closest resemblance was between
scribe D of Codex Sinaiticus and scribe A of Codex Vaticanus and
that, even if they are not the same, “the identity of the scribal
tradition stands beyond dispute”. Cavallo agreed with Milne and
Skeat. However, this is not a point Skeat himself would now wish
to dwell upon.
[We must remember that the colophon designs were not re-inked,
although the lettering was.]
iii) Another relevant consideration is the fact that Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus both end their text of Mark with the same verse. One of
the features of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus is that they,
virtually alone among New Testament manuscripts, end Mark at
16:8 (even though it is plausible that the scribe of Codex Vaticanus
was hesitant to do so).16 Sinaiticus does not provide any evidence
for the continuing of the text after verse 8, and did not do so even
before the re-writing of the bifolium, the error which provoked
the re-writing being in the text of Luke 1.
14 Paris of Ihe relevanl pages are reproduced by Skeal in his JTS piece as Plale 1.
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 74
2. Codex Sinaiticus has links with the sixth century manuscript 015
(HPaul)- 015 at the end of Paul notes that this manuscript too was
corrected against the copy (in Caesarea) of the manuscript used by
Pamphilus.
p. 76
4. Earlier arguments, by Lake and others, emphasise that certain fea-
tures of the script of Codex Sinaiticus are Egyptian (the alleged
Coptic mu, a cursive xi and a strangely formed omega) but these
have been dismissed by no less an authority than Cavallo22 and by
Milne and Skeat22 as not decisive.
As a curiosum we ought to mention a third contender as the place
of composition of Vaticanus, namely Rome. This was put forwarded
by Hort and by Wettstein but has found little favour. More recently
Hahneman has repeated this extraordinary suggestion.24 Arguments
based on alleged Latinisms in the manuscript are not persuasive. In
any case it is the essential Greek character of Vaticanus which requires
it to have been written in—and then used in, and preserved in—a
Greek-speaking milieu. Among these distinctively Greek features are:
1. A Greek autograph by a monk named Clement was written on
pp. 238 and 624, possibly as late as the fifteenth century.
24 G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992) pp. 164-5.
Ending of Mark
618
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
292 surviving manuscripts), or Revelation only (139); or Acts plus the
Catholic epistles (86).7
2. Codex Sinaiticus has links with the sixth century manuscript 015
(HPaul)- 015 at the end of Paul notes that this manuscript too was
corrected against the copy (in Caesarea) of the manuscript used by
Pamphilus.
p. 76
4. Earlier arguments, by Lake and others, emphasise that certain fea-
tures of the script of Codex Sinaiticus are Egyptian (the alleged
Coptic mu, a cursive xi and a strangely formed omega) but these
have been dismissed by no less an authority than Cavallo22 and by
Milne and Skeat22 as not decisive.
As a curiosum we ought to mention a third contender as the place
of composition of Vaticanus, namely Rome. This was put forwarded
by Hort and by Wettstein but has found little favour. More recently
Hahneman has repeated this extraordinary suggestion.24 Arguments
based on alleged Latinisms in the manuscript are not persuasive. In
any case it is the essential Greek character of Vaticanus which requires
it to have been written in—and then used in, and preserved in—a
Greek-speaking milieu. Among these distinctively Greek features are:
1. A Greek autograph by a monk named Clement was written on
pp. 238 and 624, possibly as late as the fifteenth century.
24 G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992) pp. 164-5.
Ending of Mark
618
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
292 surviving manuscripts), or Revelation only (139); or Acts plus the
Catholic epistles (86).7
Attachments
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
https://x.com/peter_tarras/status/1630485392238551055?s=20
literary snippets
george Anton Kira’s and Sabine Schnidtre
Volume 2
https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9781463244033/html?lang=en
literary snippets
george Anton Kira’s and Sabine Schnidtre
Volume 2
https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9781463244033/html?lang=en
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Fransceso Valerio
https://independent.academia.edu/FrancescoValerio8
https://www.academia.edu/97465329/A..._Colophon_from_the_Beginnings_to_Modern_Times
https://web.archive.org/web/2023030...6d906b7013209801a522f267304cb8bb8caae8e46daa3
A Short History of the Greek Colophon from the Beginnings to Modern Times (Francesco Valerio)
p. 19-72
p.
47 See at least the recent overview by Parker 2010. Brent Nongbri has most recently
argued for a dating within a time span between the early fourth and the early fifth
century, but the dated early fifth-century examples of ‘cursive’ scripts, that he quo-
tes for comparison, do not seem to me very similar to the ‘cursive’ marginal notes
inscribed in the Codex Sinaiticus: see Nongbri 2022 (especially figs. 3-4).
48 See Cavallo 1967, 82 and n. 5. Archaeometric analyses recently carried out on the
manuscript revealed that its diacritics have been inscribed by the first hand and
not, as was previously supposed, by the hand of the later restorer: therefore Elina
Dobrynina maintains that ‘using a systematic approach for dating majuscule manu-
scripts on the basis of diacritical marks as proposed by Boris L. Fonkich, the lower
text [i.e. the first hand of the text] should be assigned to the period from the end of
eighth to the end of ninth century’ (Dobrynina 2020, 147). The issue needs perhaps
some further inquiry and for the time being I rely on the traditional sixth century
dating.
https://independent.academia.edu/FrancescoValerio8
https://www.academia.edu/97465329/A..._Colophon_from_the_Beginnings_to_Modern_Times
https://web.archive.org/web/2023030...6d906b7013209801a522f267304cb8bb8caae8e46daa3
A Short History of the Greek Colophon from the Beginnings to Modern Times (Francesco Valerio)
p. 19-72
p.
47 See at least the recent overview by Parker 2010. Brent Nongbri has most recently
argued for a dating within a time span between the early fourth and the early fifth
century, but the dated early fifth-century examples of ‘cursive’ scripts, that he quo-
tes for comparison, do not seem to me very similar to the ‘cursive’ marginal notes
inscribed in the Codex Sinaiticus: see Nongbri 2022 (especially figs. 3-4).
48 See Cavallo 1967, 82 and n. 5. Archaeometric analyses recently carried out on the
manuscript revealed that its diacritics have been inscribed by the first hand and
not, as was previously supposed, by the hand of the later restorer: therefore Elina
Dobrynina maintains that ‘using a systematic approach for dating majuscule manu-
scripts on the basis of diacritical marks as proposed by Boris L. Fonkich, the lower
text [i.e. the first hand of the text] should be assigned to the period from the end of
eighth to the end of ninth century’ (Dobrynina 2020, 147). The issue needs perhaps
some further inquiry and for the time being I rely on the traditional sixth century
dating.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 56
Last edited: