Later dates for MSS: Codex W = 700 CE, P52 = II-III cent

H. Houghton has reported in  "Recent Developments in NT TC (2011, Early Christianity 2.2, p. 245-268:

"...There have also been developments in the dating of certain manuscripts. The Freer Gospels (032, W), famous for their unique text in the Longer Ending of Mark, were initially assigned to the fourth or fifth century. However, following the redating of the manuscripts used for the original comparison and the subsequent discovery of similar material, including the Cologne Mani Codex, Schmid has suggested that it may have been copied at least a century later. [29]  Parker and Birdsall's consideration of the palaeography and catena of Codex Zacynthius (040, Ξ) prompt them to propose a date of around 700 for the majuscule underwriting, rather than Hatch's suggestion of the sixth century. [30]   The date of the earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament, P52, has also been the subject of a recent review by Nongbri. [31]  This cautions against the uncritical adoption of the earliest suggested date of 125 CE and demonstrates that a date in the late second or early third centuries remains palaeographically possible. As more and more comparative material becomes available online, it will not be surprising if the dating of other manuscripts is reassessed. ...

---

29. Ulrich Schmid, "Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript," in The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove ed. Larry W. Hurtado (SBLTCS 6. Atlanta GA: SBL, 2006), 227–49.

30. D.C. Parker and J. Neville Birdsall, "The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal," JTS 55.1 (2004): 117–31 (reprinted in Parker, Manuscripts, Texts, Theology, 113–20).

31. Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," HTR 98.1 (2005): 23–48.

 It seems what has long been suspected by outsiders is turning out to have some substance and basis, namely that manuscripts generally have been dated too early, and more revisions are in the works, either by their over-enthusiastic discoverers, or else apologists. 

Nazaroo

Revelation for Dummies (3)

Last month we posted the following diagram, expanding a section of the last 2,000 years (ongoing):

Click to enlarge

Today I want to expand a little on a critical section here, before moving onto the next historical period, namely the Latin Golden Age:

Latin Literary Golden Age: Click to Enlarge

Here we can see the underground Christian movement expanding rapidly across the Roman Empire, first in the common Greek language, then early in the 2nd century being translated into Latin.  The early Latin writers were articulate, strong and daring, and as a result, many of the Romans, particularly, the lower and middle classes, servants, slaves, soldiers and artisans were converted to the new faith.   Christians became so numerous that Emperor Constantine wisely legalized Christianity and effectively ended persecutions against Christians.

During this early time there were many prolific and intelligent Christian apologists.  By about 320 A.D. it is estimated that there were about 1,200 Christian bishops spread across the Empire.  We may assume there were at least as many copies of the New Testament writings in various forms and languages by the mid 4th century.

All Latin copies of the NT in use between 200 and 400 A.D. would however be variations of the Old Latin version, early independent translations made by Christians for use by the Romans and other Latin-speaking peoples within the Empire.   The Latin Vulgate NT of Jerome (c. 392 A.D.) had not been made yet nor adopted by the West.  This only happened at the very end of the Western Literary Golden Age (200-420 A.D.).

Yet the Latin Golden Age quickly came to an end, as Emperor Constantine moved his central capital and economic base to Constantinople in the East, effectively abandoning Rome and the West.   This led to a long period of continual anarchy and warfare in the West, with Rome itself being sacked by barbarians several times.   
The original Roman Empire and Rome was essentially looted and gutted, leaving only a crippled husk of the original Empire.   This was prophetic, poetic, and effective justice for Rome's long legacy of violence and persecution, especially of Christian martyrs.

(to be continued...)
Nazaroo

Papyrus P26 - What is it good for?

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

P26:  - P.Oxy. XI 1354;  (3991)

Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS UM)
Inventory Number - P.Oxy. XI 1354
Section/Side - Recto + Verso
Material - Papyrus
Size - 23.2 10.3 cm
Lines - recto: 23 lines; verso: 20 lines

Conservation Status - 

A papyrus leaf containing the beginning of Paul's "Epistle to the Romans" is far from good condition. One side is broken away and other damage has been sustained, especially on the verso.

Palaeographic Description - 

When complete, if the margin at the bottom of the columns was similar to that at the top, the leaf was about 28 cm. high, and its breadth may be estimated at about 18 cm. The upright script, large and very heavy, is in the later Byzantine style. The ink is of the reddish-brown colour common at that period. A high stop is used in l. 29 and a paragraphus occurs below l. 33, the initial letter of the following paragraph being also enlarged. The usual contractions are found, including that of "YIOS", though this word is once written out (l. 6). The title is written at the head of the column.

Date - 6th or 7th century A.D.

Origin - Oxyrhynchos, Oxyrhynchite nome, Egypt

Language - Greek

Genre       - Literary; christian

Author      - Paul

Type of Text/Title of Work - Epistle to the Romans

Content     - Romans 1:1-16. Textually the fragment is of slight interest.

---

Here is the transcription:


Rom 1:1-10
1 [παυλος] [δουλ]ο̣ς̣ ιυ̅ χυ̅ κ̣λ̣ητος απ̣ο̣[στολος] [αφωρι]σμενος ε̣ις ευαγγελιο̣ν̣ [θυ̅] 2 [ο] [προε]π̣ηγγειλατ̣ο̣ δια̣ τ̣ω̣ν̣ [προφητων] [α]υ̣το̣υ εν γραφαις α[γιαις] 3 [περι] [το]υ̣ υιου αυτου του γ̣ε̣[νομενου] [εκ] [σ]π̣ερματος δα̅δ̣ κατ[α] [σαρκα] 4 [του] [ορ]ισθεντος υυ̅ θ̣υ̣̅ ε̣ν̣ [δυναμει] [κατα] π̣ν̅α αγιωσυν̣ης εξ̣ α̣[ναστασεως] [ν]ε̣κρων ι̣υ̅ χυ̅ τ̣ο̣υ̣ κ̣υ̣̅ [ημων] 5 [δι] [ου] ελαβομεν̣ χ̣[α]ρ̣ι̣ν [και] [αποστολην] [εις] υ̣π̣[ακοην] π̣ι̣σ̣τ̣ε̣[ως] [εν] [πασιν] [τοις] [εθνεσιν] [υπ]ε̣ρ̣ τ̣[ο]υ̣ [ονοματος] [αυτου] 6 [εν] [οι]ς̣ ε̣σ̣τ̣ε̣ κ̣α̣[ι] [υμεις] [κλητοι] [ιυ̅] [χυ̅] 7 [πασιν] [τοι]ς ο̣υ̣σ̣ι̣ν̣ [εν] [ρωμη] [αγαπ]ητοις̣ θυ̅ κ̣λ̣η̣τ̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ [αγιοις] [χαρις] [υ]μιν και ειρηνη̣ α[πο] [θυ̅] [πρ̅ς] [ημω]ν̣ κα̣ι̣ κυ̅ ιυ̅ χυ̅ 8 [9-10] [τ]ω θω̅ μου δι̣[α] ι̣υ̣̅ χυ̅ [περι] [παντων] [υ]μ̣ω̣ν ο̣τ̣ι η πιστις [υμων] [καταγγελλε]τ̣ε εν ολω τω̣ [κοσμω] 9 [μαρτυ]ς̣ γ̣αρ μ̣[ο]υ̣ ε̣[στιν] [ο] –

[ε]υ̣α̣γ̣γελι̣ω̣ τ̣ου̣ υυ̅ α̣[υτου] [ως] [αδια]λι̣π̣τ̣ως μ̣νε̣ιαν υ̣[μων] [ποιουμαι] 10 π̣α̣ν̣τ̣ο[τε] υπε̣ρ των [προσευχων] [μου] δε̣ο̣με̣νος̣ ε̣ι̣ π̣ω̣ς̣ η̣[δη] [ποτε] [ευοδω]θ̣η̣σομαι εν τω θ̣ε̣[ληματι] [του] [θυ̅] [ελθειν] προς ·υμας

Rom 1:11-16
11 επιποθ̣[ω] [γαρ] [ιδειν] [υμας] ι̣να τι μεταδω̣ χ̣αρι[σμα] [υμιν] [πν̅ικον] ει̣ς το στιρηχθ̣ηνα[ι] [υμας] 12 [τουτο] [δε] [εστιν] συνπαρακληθ̣ηνε̣ [εν] [υμιν] [δια] [της] ε̣ν̣ α̣λ̣[λ]η̣λοις̣ πιστ̣[εως] [υμων] [τε] [και] [εμου] 13 ου̣ [θελω] [δε] [υμας] [αγνοειν] [αδελφοι] [ο]τ̣ι̣ [πολλακις] [προεθεμην] [ελθειν] π̣[ρ]ο̣ς̣ υ̣μ̣[ας] [και] [εκωλυθην] [αχρι] [του] [δευ]ρο ι̣ν̣α̣ τ̣ι̣[να] [καρπον] [σχω] [και] [εν] [υμιν] καθ̣ως̣ κα̣ι̣ ε̣ν̣ [τ]ο̣ι̣ς̣ λ̣[οιποις] [εθνεσιν] 14 [ελ]λη̣σιν τε̣ και β̣αρβ̣α̣[ροις] [σοφοις] [τε] [και] [α]ν̣οητ̣ο̣ι̣ς̣ ο̣φ̣ιλετ̣η̣[ς] [ειμι] 15 [ουτως] [το] [κατ] [ε]με̣ π̣ρ̣ο̣[θυμον] [και] [υμιν] [τοις] [εν] [ρωμη] ευ̣α̣γ̣γ̣ε̣[λισασθαι] 16 [ου] [γαρ] [επαισχυνομαι] [το] ε̣υ̣[αγγελι]ο̣ν̣ δυν̣α̣[μις] [γαρ] [θυ̅] [εστιν] [εις] –

---

"The fragment is of slight interest."  -  So the catalog says.  Actually however, it does have some interest.  For one thing, it gives us the heads-up, that many of the approximately 100 biblical papyri from  Oxyrhynchos are actually quite 'late' in date, if estimates are to be trusted.  This Greek papyrus written in what looks like an early 'uncial' script has been dated about 6th or 7th century, i.e., with a 100 year window (a typical and normal range).    We are told that the main basis for the dating is in fact the script itself, that is it has been dated partly on palaeological grounds.

If then P26 is a good example of 6-7th century script, it can be studied for that reason alone, in reasonable detail.  This will assist us in assessing the claims regarding other papyri of various ages, especially other Oxyrhynchos MSS.


peace
Nazaroo

What a Purple Manuscript Really Looks Like

There are a lot of bad images of MSS, and a lot of images of bad MSS.  Its hard to find a good image of a good MS, which can actually give us a real feel and grasp of what the famous Purple Codices must have looked like when they were new.

Surprisingly, the Royal Scriptorium in Constantinople was still churning out purple MSS as late as the 1500s:

Tetraevangelion. Miniature of St Mark
Gold on purple parchment. 9th century

The above photo (click to enlarge) gives a rare glimpse of what purple codex in its prime looked like.  We see the smooth, shiney, almost silky purple page, and the rich gold lettering (done with real gold!).  These manuscripts were probably mostly made for emperors and kings, or the few 'great cathedrals' in the major cities of the Holy Roman Empire.   Obviously only royalty could dream of owning a private copy of such a treasure.

The National Library of Russia site tells us:

"Nicholas I was given a precious eleventh-century purple Gospel which had once belonged to the Christian community of Gumushane (also in Asia Minor). This volume written in gold and silver and adorned with miniatures was produced in the imperial Byzantine scriptorium. Another work from the same source is the Codex Petropolitanus, a sixth-century purple Gospel which Nicholas II bought from the village of Sarmisahly with the assistance of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople."

Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus, designated by N or 022, is shown below, in a much crappier photo:

Petropolitanus (6th cent.)

Nazaroo

What Good Manuscripts look like

I just had to share this close-up of probably one of the most beautiful manuscripts ever produced in the era of hand-written documents.

It is on display in Portugal.

This is the kind of manuscript one could be excused for being tempted to admire it perhaps too much.   Wouldn't you love to own something like this, rather than the extravagantly printed facsimile of say, Codex Vaticanus? 
I wish they'd offer this in a quality reproduction!

Here's a few more:

 labeled as a Hand-written Bible Manuscript from possibly the 12th century

Click to Enlarge

Page spread from the Book of Hours (France, late fifteenth century) 
showing the Adoration of the Magi on the left page.

Click to Enlarge

Here's a bargain: A 15th century prayerbook with full color illustrations, just sold for a mere 1,500. 


Bloomsbury French Prayerbook

On the other hand, Christie's Auction House wanted some $350,000 for their rare manuscript recently.



peace
Nazaroo

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 13): Burgon's Vindication on Dating

We may appropriately close this series of articles on Sinaiticus and Mark's Ending with the original Appendix by Dean John Burgon (1871) in his classic defense of the ME,

On the Relative Antiquity of B & Aleph

א Lacks Ancient Features

I. “Vix differt aetate a Codice Sinaitico,”, says Tischendorf, (ed. 8va, 1869, p. ix,) speaking of the Codex Vaticanus (B). Yet does he perpetually designate his own Sinaitic Codex (א) as “omnium antiquissimus.” Now,

(1) The (all but unique) sectional division of the Text of Codex B, — confessedly the oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a striking note of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing, apparently, of the Eusebian method. But I venture further to suggest that the following peculiarities in Codex unmistakably indicate for it a later date than Codex B.

(2) Cod. א , (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. 24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. א as many as thirty interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Codex B, except in one place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards of fifty times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but one break in Codex B. But it is broken into well nigh an hundred and fifty short paragraphs in Cod. א .   There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the style of the papyrus of Hyperides published by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod. א , is where the Command- ments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.), and where our LORD proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.)

(3) Again; Cod. א is prone to exhibit, on extraordinary occasions, a single word in a line, as at —

S. MATTH. XV. 30.
ΧΩΛΟΥΣ
ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ
ΚΥΛΛΟΥΣ
ΚΩΦΟΥΣ

S. MARK X. 29.
Η ΑΔΕΛΦΑΣ
Η ΠΑΤΕΡΑ
Η ΜΗΤΕΡΑ
Η ΤΕΚΝΑ
Η ΑΓΡΟΥΣ

S. LUKE XIV. 13
ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ
ΑΝΑ ΗΡΟΥΣ
ΧΩΛΟΥΣ
ΤΥΦΛΟΥΣ

This became a prevailing fashion in the 6th century; e.g. when the Cod. Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. The only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the Genealogy of our LORD.

(4) At the commencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in Cod. slightly projects into the margin, — beyond the left hand edge of the column; as usual in all later MSS. This characteristic is only not undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances of it there are in the earlier Codex; but they are of exceedingly rare occurrence.

(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as ΑΝΟΣ, ΟΥΝΟΣ (with all their cases), for ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, &c. Not only ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ (for πνευμα, πατηρ-τερ,-τερα, μητερα ), but also ΣΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ, for Σταυρωθη, Ισραηλ, Ιερουσαλεμ.
But Cod. B, though familiar with ΙΣ (Ιησους), and a few other of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly cannot have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod א indicates for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.

(6) The very discrepancy observable between these two Codices in their method of dealing with “the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel,” (already adverted to at p. 88,) is a further indication, and as it seems to the present writer a very striking one, that Cod. B is the older of the two. Cod. א is evidently familiar with the phenomenon which astonishes Cod. B by its novelty and strangeness.

(7) But the most striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be recognised by one who surveys the Codices themselves with attention. It is that general air of primitiveness in Cod. B which makes itself at once felt. The even symmetry of the unbroken columns; — the work of the prima manus everywhere vanishing through sheer antiquity; — the small, even, square writing, which partly recalls the style of the Herculanean rolls; partly, the papyrus fragments of the Oration against Demosthenes (published by Harris in 1848): — all these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set Cod. B before Cod.א; though it may be impossible to determine whether by 50, by 75, or by 100 years."

 The special feature we discussed in the previous article, Dean Burgon had not noted, but in point (4) he fully notices the general frequency of "outdenting" the first letter of every paragraph so prevalent in Sinaiticus but almost nonexistent in Vaticanus, itself suggesting a significant difference in style and age.

Peace
Nazaroo

Undocumented Edits to the NT in modern versions

Fact or Fiction: You decide:

 

Here are some examples of completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list "MV" means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και
Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε
Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι
Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι...
και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε
Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH
Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON
Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)
Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας
Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε
John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι
John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται
John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως
John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος
John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE KNOWN PROBABLE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.
Instead of guessing how 'unlikely' it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda, open a copy of the UBS text, and see if they deleted the half-verses or not.
Check the apparatus, and see if they documented the alterations or not.
Check for yourself, and answer the question for yourself.

These aren't just Majority Text and Byzantine text-type readings.
They are readings that have been in the NT text in both Greek and Latin for 1000 years. ( - that is, the texts used by the vast majority of Christians everywhere in the Roman Empire).

Its not that critics altered the verses: its that they altered the verses without telling the reader.
What is your definition of honest?

Middleton (1892) on Vellum Production & Cost

Some interesting background on vellum for manuscripts is given in Middleton's volume: 
Here is an exerpt:

Illuminated Manuscripts in Classical
and Mediaeval Times: And Their Art and ...

By J. Henry Middleton

Originally published in 1892 (reprinted. Cambridge 2010)

Chapter XIV. (p. 224-225)

The Materials and Technical Processes of the Illuminator.

Vellum for scribes ¹ The most remarkable skill is shown by the perfection to which the art of preparing vellum ² for the scribe was brought. The exquisitely thin uterine vellum, which was specially used for the minutely written Anglo-Norman Vulgates of the 13th century, has been already described (see p. 113). For ivory-likebeauty of colour and texture nothing could surpass the best Italian vellum of the 15th century.

One occasional use of the very thin uterine vellum should be noted.
For example in a German 12th century copy of the Vulgate, now in the corpus library in Cambridge, some fo the miniature pictures have been painted on separate pieces of uterine vellum, and then pasted into their place on the thicker vellum pages of the manuscript. This, however, is an exceptional thing.

The vellum used for illuminated manuscripts appears to have been costly, partly on account of the skill and labour that were required for its production, and, in the case of uterine vellum on account of the great number of animals' skins that were required to provide enough material for the writing of a single manuscript such as a copy of the Vulgate.

Even the commoner kind of parchment used for official documents was a rather costly thing. The roll with the Visitation expenses of Bishop Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford from 1282 to 1317, shows that 150 sheets of parchment cost 3s. 4d., about 4 lb in modern value ³.

The vellum used for manuscripts has a different texture on its two sides. One side, that on which the hair grew, has a matt, unglossy surface; the other (interior) side of the skin is perfectly smooth and, in the case of the finest vellum, has a beautifully glossy texture like that of polished ivory.

In writing a manuscript the scribe was careful to arrange his pages so that two glossy and two dull pages came opposite each other. ⁴

The are of preparing vellum of the finest kind is now lost; the vellum made in England is usually spoilt first by rubbing down the surface to make it unnaturally even, and then by loading it with a sort of priming of plaster and white lead, very much like the paper of a cheap memorandum book.

The best vellum is still made in Italy, especially in Rome. Good, stout, undoctored vellum of a fine, pure colour can be procured in Rome, though in limited quantities, and at a high price, ⁵ but nothing is now made which resembles either the finest ivory-textured vellum of 15th century Italian manuscripts, or the exquisitely thin uterine vellum of the Anglo-Norman Bibles.

---

1. See Peignot, Essai sur l'histoire du parchemin et du vellin, Paris, 1812.

2. Strictly speaking, the word vellum should denote parchment made from calf-skin,
but the word is commonly used for any of the finer qualities of parchment which were
used for manuscripts.

3. Quoted by Hook, Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury, Vol. III, p.353; the Rev. Canon G.F.  Browne kindly called my attention to this passage. Other examples of the cost of vellum are given in the preceeding chapter.

4. The same arrangement is to be seen in books printed on vellum.

5. For example, the mere vellum required to print a small thick folio, such as Caxton's Golden Legend, would now cost about 40 lbs.

---

On note 3, the cost of vellum:

  One Pound Sterling (GBP) in 1892 had the purchasing power of about £72.41  today.  'Times four' that would give about £290, or  $472.41 American for 150 sheets of ordinary parchment, = $3.00 per sheet in 1892, with quantities limited.  

This seems quite low, and the real value should be measured instead against what an ordinary laborer could afford, or against the available resources for other community projects:

£4 (150 sheets of ordinary parchment) in 1892 converts to the following in modern money:

£322.00	using the retail price index	A Commodity. If your are asking about the "present worth" of buying a loaf of bread, or the amount of money spent today on such things? If so, use the price index
£430.00	using the GDP deflator	If the question is how much it cost compared to the present cost of materials or labor, you would use the the GDP deflator value.
£1,930.00	using the average earnings	how "affordable" this would be to the average person, the compensation of a production worker is given by the average earnings figure,
£2,450.00	using the per capita GDP	another estimate of how "affordable" this would be to the average person, is the GDP per capita.
£3,970.00	using the share of GDP	In the past there were less materials and labor available for all projects. So to measure how important this project was to the community (vs. other projects) use the share of GDP indicator.

These numbers now give a more realistic range of values based on real conditions 100 years ago, such as expected earnings and availability of resources.

You can get estimates for purchasing power 100 years ago and today here:
Measuring Worth

You can convert to American dollars here:
Currency Conversion

peace
Nazaroo

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 10): replacement sheet 1

We will be better equipped to discern the borders and purpose of the "cancel sheets" in Aleph if we examine first the more obvious of the two.   I refer here to the sheet making up folios 2 and 7 in Quire 75, replaced by Scribe D and covering pages 3 & 4 (Matthew 16:9-18:12) and pages 13 & 14 (Matt. 24:35-26:6) of the Quire.  Recall again the layout of a quire below:

In our case for Quire 75, the replacement sheet replaces folios #2 and #7 (second sheet from bottom: these were misnumbered by Myshrall as 74-2, 74-7, but are in fact 75-2 and 75-7).

Since the replacement sheet was apparently done in the scriptorium by the original scribes, there is nothing obvious about the vellum itself to distinguish it from the vellum used elsewhere.   However, the borders between scribes are well-defined in this case, by several signs:

Click to Enlarge: backbutton to return

(1) The red Eusebian marginal numberings are missing completely from all four pages.  This indicates the sheet was replaced after they had already been added to the manuscript, and after this quire was completed by Scribe A.  

This does not necessarily prove either they or the replacement sheet were done before the MS left the scriptorium.  On the contrary, all it shows is that the Eusebian numberings are contemporary with and prior to the replacement sheet.  Although it is near-certain that Scribe D (who wrote other sections) wrote the sheet, this doesn't mean the MS never left the scriptorium.  It is quite possible that it went out, a complaint was made, and it was sent back for repair, at which time the sheet was replaced.   But it seems clear that both the Eusebian marks and the replacement sheet were done very close to the time of manufacture.

(2) The replacement pages have Scribe D's trademark 'fill-characters' (">") at the ends of lines in every column of the replacement pages.  And with only one exception (a single ">" on page 9, column 4), these appear only on the replacement pages.

This flourish is not merely decorative (giving the right-margin sharper definition), but also appears to make the replacement pages easy to find and indicate the completion of the the repair beyond any doubt.  As this was a very expensive and time-consuming operation, this was probably done for billing purposes, or to provide proof the repair-work was done as ordered.

There was no attempt to hide the replacement job in any sinister sense.  Instead, it appears that the repair was done essentially to restore the text, but also carefully preserve the look and style of the manuscript throughout.  This is why the Scribes are careful to write so similarly.

(3) The problem-area was on Folio 2.  This becomes obvious when we compare the material originally done by Scribe A on the surrounding pages.  Scribe D crams an extra 120 - 350 letters on his replacement pages 3 and 4.  This is a large discrepancy, amounting to from 2 - 12 verses!   The material on the other end of the sheet, pages 13-14, although slightly higher than average, is about the same as that on the surrounding pages in the last half of the Quire.

Click to Enlarge

(4) Scribe A had omitted a large portion of text, requiring the extreme solution of replacing the pages.  In other places Scribe D (the overseer/corrector) is content to insert up to 72 characters in the margin of the manuscript, without replacing pages.

More to follow...

Nazaroo

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 9): Myshrall on Scribe D

Well, we may never get much help from the Official Sinaiticus Site (they will be too busy no doubt to respond).  But we need a definitive answer on exactly what Scribe D was responsible for (last week we noted that they listed the rest of the entire Quire 77 as the work of Scribe D!).

Before we set off, we will give the up-to-date discussion of Scribe D by Myshrall, an excellent and thorough piece by the way.  Here we will find more useful keys for sorting which scribe is which:

"Scribe D was an excellent speller, A was poor, and B was appalling! One must be aware of the circularity of some of this reasoning though. If one assumes that a scribe is a poor speller, then one will try to assign all the texts with spelling mistakes to that scribe, which many not be so. Not every scribe was entirely consistent, so ther must be more concrete palaeographical reasons for identifying a hand.

Several individual characteristics distinguish the three scribes of Sinaiticus, although the general appearance of the hands is very similar... The superline of the final nu (i.e., a nu found at the end of a line) by Scribe A partly covers the preceding vowel, whereas with Scribe B it is placed more to the right and goes further into the margin (M & S, Figure 6). The line endings themselves also help to identify the hands (M & S, Figure 7).
For Scribe A, compression begins a long way back into the line at the 6th or 7th letter(11th in poetical texts). The upright slopes become elongated and the rounded letters diminished to allow the writing to be compressed into a smaller space.
For Scribe B compression rarely affects more than three letters, and those evenly.

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

Scribe D resembles Scribe A in the final letters but there is no elongation of the vertical strokes. IN addition, he seldom diminishes more than three letters at a time.

KAI Forms & Diples (">")

The KAI compendium by Scribe A is in the form of an oblique stroke at an acute angle from the bottom of the K. With Scribe B, the angle of the stroke is flatter, and the stroke often shorter (M&S, Figure 6).
Scribe D has a curved stroke on his KAI compendium which is very distinctive.

Scribe A never uses the diple (">") to fill in the ends of empty lines. Scribe B uses it very rarely; no more than once every three pages in the prophetic books and less in Hermas (with the exception of one page in Jeremiah where he uses it 12 times). However, Scribe D uses it in abundance, sometimes doubled (">>") to cover erasures, which makes his NT cancel leaves stand out. The hand of Scribe D is smaller, with an undulating effect as the rounded letters are smaller. This has led M&S to say that Scribe D is a far superior scribe, due to his spelling and style. (M&S, p. 23).

The Cancel Leaves of Matthew
Within the Gospel of Matthew in Aleph, Scribe D has replaced one sheet of parchment (2 folios). This stands out because the rest of the text is by Scribe A. The sheet replaced is Quire 74-2 and 74-7 [@ 4 sheets or 8 folios /quire], this being folio pages 10/10b, and 15/15b [i.e., recto/verso of folios 10 & 15 = 4 page faces]. The text is Matt. 16:9-18:12 [f10] and Matt. 24:36- 26:6.[f15]

Although the letter shapes of Scribes A and D are very similar (so similar in fact that I could not tell a difference between the two scribes, apart from through the following features), there are certain signs that can be seen showing these pages are by a different hand:

(1) Scribe D uses diples ("<", ">") to fill in the ends of his lines. these number 8 on page 10, 17 on page 10b, 17 on page 15, and 31 on 15b. Scribe A rarely uses diples, so this sudden abundance indicates a different scribe. An example of Scribe A's diples is on 3b/4/24.
(2) Scribe D's KAI compendium is more curved than Scribe A's within the text. This can be seen on 10/3/1, 10/4/26, 10b/1/28, 15/1/16, 15/2/30, 15b/2/20, 15b/2/46, 15b/3/40. For an example of Scribe A's compendium see 3.5 (1b/4/30) and throughout the rest of Matthew.
(3) Scribe D's spelling is generally more precise. There are fewer itacisms on his pages, as well as basic spelling mistakes. Itacisms found, number 8 on pg 10, 7 on 10b, 7 on 15, 4 on 15b. This compares to Scribe A's 41 on p.11, 40 on 11b, 38 on 16, 34 on 16b. (pages chosen follow on from Scribe D. The same is true for any of Scribe A's leaves.)
(4) Scribe D tends to use fewer abbreviations in his text, these including Nomina Sacra and numerals. (I haven't counted these because the number of abbreviations varies depending on the number of Nomina sacra.)

---

The Cancel Leaves of Mark and Luke
There is only one cancel leaf in Mark/Luke, which contains the end of Mark (14:54-16:8), and Luke 1:1-56. As this cancel sheet (two folios) was in the center of the quire, both leaves are consecutive, 76-4 and 76-5, called folios 29 and 29b by Lake.
These pages were replaced by Scribe D, possibly because Scribe A made an unusually serious mistake. The same features of the change of hands can be seen as in the cancel leaves of Matthew. The number of diples used in Mark are 20 on folio 38, 20 on 28b, and 16 on 29. The number in Luke are 5 on the rest of 29, and 11 on 29b. This suggests that Scribe D was trying to stretch Mark out onto another column, but does not necessarily imply that the original problem was with the end of Mark, although this is always an option. Also indicative of Scribe D here is the spelling of Ιωανην for Ιωαννην in Luke 1:13.
However, on this cancel leaf we do have Eusebian notation unlike in Matthew, and we do have a fair few nomina sacra, 10 examples on folio 29, and 23 on folio 29b. THis includes the first occurrence of CPI for σωτηρι. There are also some itacisms here but they mainly involve propoer nouns such as Elizabeth Ελεισαβετ Ελισαβετ. There was a lot of variation in the spelling of proper names, so Scribe D can still be seen as an accurate speller.
The importance of the indentification of cancel leaves is that it shows how thoroughly the MS was revised in the scriptorium. It suggests that it was destined for somewhere quite important because of the care taken in producing it, with appearance being as important as text. Only when it reached the "C Correctors" did the text become of fundamental importance, hence the numerous corrections carried out at that time. This can be seen because the corrections were carried out in a more careless way than the earlier ones.
The other major complication of the cancel leaves is that they indicate the number of people working on one text at one time. This implies a scriptorium background for Aleph, as privately copied MSS would probably have been done by one person. Scribe D could be viewed as the senior scribe, who probably skim read the text looking for obvious errors before it went out. This would explain why his corrections would tend to be bunched, because if he noticed one error he would probably concentrate more in that area on finding problems, and then relax again when the text seemed to be going alright. It is even possible to hypothesize that in areas where many mistakes were made the scribe was tiring, and ready for a break, and then when the text suddenly rights itself he had stopped and had a rest.
The identification of Scribe D for these pages has repercussions for the running titles. Within these pages Scribe D spells Ιωανην for Scribe A and B's Ιωαννην. Byu demonstrating D's spelling of this proper noun, he can be ruled out for the running titles, superscription and subscription of the Gospel of John. The other major importance of this identification is that it proves that cancel leaves were written for Sinaiticus, showing that accuracy was of great importance for this MS. It also shows that it was not necessarily the original hand that completed the cancel leaf."

A.C. Myshrall,

Cod.Sinaiticus,

Its Correctors & the Caesarean text of the Gospels,

Dissertation, (Birmingham U., 2005)

We are now I think ready to try an analysis of the surrounding pages, to determine the actual extent of the work of Scribe D involving Mark's Ending and the modified Quire 77.

peace
Nazaroo

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 7): James Snapp (cont.)

Continuing our discussion of Codex Sinaiticus, we turn our attention again to the numbers of letters in each column of the 'cancel sheet(s)' (Scribe D),  and the counts in the surrounding area by the original Scribe A.

Here is a wonderful chart composed by Mr. Scrivener diagramming the details of the current picture.   The letter-counts are based on the text as transcribed on the Codex Sinaiticus Homepage (British Museum), but we have subtracted all marginal notes (which were added independently later), and also the peculiar symbols of Scribe D (the ">" arrow used to fill rows to make the page look fuller.).   Still counted as a character was the "dots" indicating verse and paragraph divisions, because these are assumed to have been copied from the original master-copy, and are not the invention of either scribe.

Now lets turn to the chart:

Click to Enlarge: Backbutton to return

The behavior of Scribe D (the person who substituted the pages) is fairly straightforward.    For the first three columns, he simply copies the pages he has removed, rightly noting that the previous Scribe A (author of the rest of the NT minus a couple of pages) has already done some of the work of compressing the text for the purpose of creating nearly a whole blank column of space.


He has already carefully calculated that the best course for handling Luke's verses will be to squeeze them into SIX of the last columns on the 'cancel-sheet' (folio 77-5 recto last 2 columns, and the 4 columns of the other side, 77-5 verso).  This will gain him about a half a column.


Now he calculates the remaining approximately SIX columns of Mark, and to leave the last column nearly empty (but avoiding leaving a whole column), he crams about 60 letters into the last column of folio 77-4 recto.  He has actually been too extreme here, and now must write the final FIVE columns of Mark rather sparsely to make sure he spills over a little into the last blank column before Luke.


A glance at the column heights explains why he chose this route.  He did not have enough material to stretch Luke to fill an entire SEVENTH column, and even if he had done this by some real spreading,  He would have only had just enough space for Mark, filling all the previous columns, without the Long Ending (Mark 16:9-20).   This may indeed have been exactly what Scribe A had originally done.


However, Scribe D, likely the Overseer and Corrector of the scriptorium, knew this would be highly unsatisfactory, and wished to at least leave a nearly blank column to tip off future users and enable them to copy in the Ending if they chose to.   Scribe D then, was aware of the Long Ending.  Even though he did not allow sufficient space for it, due to his desire to keep the look of the manuscript professional and standardize the book-seams, he did feel compelled to make sure that at least the option was available and the problem highlighted.


In this strategy, Scribe D mimicks almost exactly the behavior of the scribe of Codex Vaticanus, who also leaves just enough space to allow for Mark's Ending, but in that case he also left a rather awkward completely blank column between Mark and Luke.  It seems clear that our Scribe D had seen that solution before and wanted to improve it by extending Mark into the blank column, and give the appearance of a normal manuscript.

We only need try to reconstruct what the original Scribe A had done on the pages now lost, which ought to explain how the 'need' for a substitution arose.

Matthew's Ending (28:19): The textual evidence

There's been a bit of a discussion over the past semester on the Ending of Matthew. Not the very last verse, mind you, but the penultimate one, verse 19 of chapter 28. Here are several extant versions of it (ignoring  ligatures and miniature uncials but indicating Nomina Sacra:  πρς = patros,   πνς = pneumatos):

01 (א) = Sinaiticus
πορευθεντες ⸆ μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του  πρς και του υιου και του αγιου  πνς


02 (A) = Alexandrinus
πορευθεντες ⸆ μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του  πρς και του υυ και του αγιου  πνς

03 (B) = Vaticanus
πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτισαντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

05 (D) = Bezae
πορευεσθαι νυν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτισαντες αυτους εις το ονομα του  πρς και ⸆ υιου και του αγιου  πνς

032 (W) = Washingtonensis
πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του  πρς και του υιου και του αγιου  πνς

Tischendorf, Majority Text (=01/א)
πορευθεντες ⸆ μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort, NA27 (=032/W)

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

 First of all, let's consider the overall pattern of variants. Codex Bezae is wild as usual, with unique readings at all three locations, plus a missing article--reading just as if it were a translation from the Old Latin in the adjacent column.

Ah--oops, not quite so. Codex Vaticanus joins its wildness at βαπτίσαντες. I had to look these up in facsimile, as LaParola claims they both read βαπτίζαντες. They don't -- unless both facsimiles are wrong, which I strongly doubt.  It's evident that LaParola does not reflect the actual text of Bezae, just a general pattern of support and non-support for readings found elsewhere.


It's interesting to note--claims of 'accumulated errors' notwithstanding, the text that Erasmus found in a medieval minuscule (probably GA-1, Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2) turned out to read exactly as Codex Washingtoniensis -- nearly coeval with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and at least as old as Bezae. So it was that Westcott/Hort kept the Textus Receptus reading--which remains unchanged to this day in the NA27 text. 
Tischendorf, however, influenced by Sinaiticus, aligned with the reading in the youngest minuscules! All this should put to rest the idea that 'older is better' and 'youngest is worthless.'

Now, leaving aside the wild readings, let's focus on the variants themselves. 


1. Include or omit ουν.
Although it's included in Vaticanus, we can hardly call it an Alexandrian reading (especially since two of the Alexandrian witnesses, C and L, are lacunose here). It's actually more like the Caesarean reading, shared by a smattering of Alexandrian and Byzantine mss. Being the Vulgate reading, it found its way into the Textus Receptus by way of Erasmus' Caesarean manuscript GA-1.
Most manuscripts from 01 (א) onward omit it -- a most unusual situation in which one of the oldest manuscripts line up with most of the youngest ones, but one of the youngest ones lines up with most of the oldest.

2.  -- βαπτίζοντες vs. βαπτίσαντες
The former is the present active form, the latter the aorist active form of the participle. Textual editors have rejected  the latter, despite its presence in Codex Vaticanus; I don't know why. This appears to be a Western influence in Vaticanus. LaParola is quite off here, misspelling their citation of the latter form.


There is only one more variant mentioned at LaParola (the UBS4 text), which is the deletion of the entire phrase βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ("baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit").
According to LaParola, Origen  and Eusebius replace the entire phrase with ἐν τῳ ὀνόματι μου (i.e., = "in My name [only]"), when in fact Origin simply deletes it.

The story is far from being as simple as that. Actually, the full phrase is cited about 90 times in patristic writings, but none of them place the phrase at the end of Matthew's gospel--nor do any of the citations of Origen and Eusebius. In fact, neither of these attach  ἐν τῳ ὀνόματι μου to either form of the participle, but rather to the verb used earlier in the verse for making disciples of all nations.

If one were to hypothesize, as Conybeare did, that the Trinitarian Formula was not original to Matthew -- on the basis of Eusebius and Origen -- then he should go on to conclude that the entire baptismal formula, including any mention of a name, was a later development. But there simply isn't any direct textual or patristic evidence that Matthew's gospel ended without it.

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 6): James Snapp (cont.)

Now lets continue again with more of James Snapp Jr.'s article, in which he gets into some more detail about these pages and in particular the compression and expansion of text in the columns.  Again we give the diagram to help readers locate the columns under discussion:

James goes on:

The Last Two Columns of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus

"[James' diagram] shows the arrangement of the text in columns 9 and 10 of the four-page (16-column) cancel-sheet at the end of Mark in Sinaiticus.  [here we have inserted below a good photo of this page with columns 9 - 12:]

Folio 77 - 5 (recto): Mark ends & Luke begins

James now jumps back to discuss the previous two pages, namely folio 77 -4 (recto/verso):

77-4 recto: columns 1-4

77-4 verso: columns 5-8

The text of Mark from 15:19 (which appears earlier in the cancel-sheet, at column 5, line 11) onward has been stretched so as to fill more space than it normally would. However, from column 4, line 1 to column 5, line 10, the text was written in a compressed script, with the result that column 4 contains 707 letters. If the copyist had continued to write compactly, the cancel-sheet would have had plenty of room for the Long Ending. (However, if the copyist had continued to write so as to average 635 letters per column, if he had tried to write the Long Ending he would have reached the end of column 10 with 206 letters to go. Thus it is practically certain that the original pages of the end of Mark in Sinaiticus did not contain the Long Ending.)

As you can see, column 9 [folio 77-5 recto at top] contains only 552 letters (significantly less than the typical amount of about 635). Columns 11-16 [including folio 77-5 verso below] (containing Luke 1:1-56) are all written in compressed script; in those six columns the average column contains 691 letters. This suggests that the cancel-sheet was made because the original pages featured an accidental omission of text in Luke 1.

Folio 77-5 verso (back): columns 13-16

That still does not explain why the text is compacted in column 4 and in the first 10 lines of column 5. 

One theory is that the person who made the cancel-sheet began by using an exemplar which contained the Long Ending, and as he was writing column 4, he sensed that something was amiss, so he began to compact the text so that the Long Ending would fit, but then (at the beginning of Mark 15:19) he consulted the exemplar used by the original copyist, and realized that it did not contain the Long Ending. He had to stretch the text of Mark from that point on, in order to avoid leaving a blank column between Mark and Luke.

Another theory is that the cancel-sheet's maker initially planned to begin the text of Luke in column 10, and compressed the text of Mark for that reason (i.e., so as to end Mark's text in column 9). Then he changed his mind, preferring to compress Luke's text within six columns rather than to stretch it for seven columns, with the result that he had to stretch the text of Mark from 15:19 onward (especially in column 9) to avoid leaving a blank column between Mark and Luke. However, this does not explain why, if the cancel-sheet's maker initially planned to begin the text of Luke in column 10, he did not start the text-compression immediately in columns 1-3."

Our first observation is this: James writes in brackets above, 

(However, if the [original scribe A] had continued [at] 635 letters per column, he would have [had] 206 letters to go [for the Long Ending]. Thus it is practically certain that the original pages ... did not contain the Long Ending.)

This statement, while technically true, is however misleading.  All it amounts to is that the original scribe A didn't have room to fit it in, and stopped his work, which begs the question.  

One fact that is simply not taken into account in various of James' options is this:  Elsewhere, scribe D always inserts single cancel-leaves, not double-sheets of four pages (i.e., folio 10, 15, 88, 91).   Why recopy four whole pages here?   The small amount of text in the Lukan variant (proposed originally by Tischendorf, for which there is no textual support at all)  cannot justify a four-page replacement, nor can such a small factor explain why the original scribe A would have needed to turn to scribe D for help. 

Given this most remarkable extra feature, the replacement of four whole pages, with obvious attempts at adjusting all the columns preceding Mark's ending, it seems far more plausible that the problem was Mark's ending;  Scribe A appealed to Scribe D,  and Scribe A's work was taken over, removed and replaced by Scribe D.

James' "Theory 1" above is inadequate, because it mixes up the roles of the two scribes.  It was in fact Scribe A who was copying from an exemplar having Mark's ending (as suggested by all other MSS everywhere, except B).  He was the one who noticed the problem (the inadequate space of the pre-allocated  pages), and therefore the 2nd Scribe D's subsequent waffling attempts at adjusting the pace were done with the problem already perceived.   This is evident because at this time the pages were already being replaced.  

The fact that Scribe D may have changed his mind, or received new (but ultimately unrealistic) orders on how to proceed while in the middle of the task, is hardly surprising, nor is the fact that the pages were not replaced yet again, given the cost of vellum.

Peace

Nazaroo