Subject: Re: Paragraph marks in Codex Vaticanus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:45:03 -0500

In a message dated 95-12-04 18:53:10 EST, [email-masked] writes:

>I am wondering whether any subscribers to tc-list might have thoughts
>or resources to suggest concerning the Vaticanus paragraph marks so I
>might pursue the possibility of their consistency with the text's
>aural organization.
>
>Thank you for your attention.
>
>Margaret E. Dean
>Graduate Student
>Melbourne College of Divinity

Margaret,

   I don't have a copy of Vaticanus here, but I did get to look at
photocopies of a couple leaves of that manuscript I had handy.
   Looking at the leaf of Luke 7:14-38, the kephala (paragraph markings) are
the letters with a line drawn over them to indicate that they are numbers.
 They look like a simple number system of the chapters: NA, NB, NG (=51, 52,
53).  They are probably later additions to the mss by another hand other than
the copiest.  (Aren't they in a different color ink?  I can't remember and my
copy is only B&W :( 

   In other words, these divisions aren't necessarily the ones the author of
the text was thinking of.  Based upon the biblical writers use of chaistic
structure, alliterations, etc, its pretty clear as they were writing, they
were thinking of their aural audience listening to a reader of their writing,
as was the common practice (Rev. 1:3) (as you well know).
  The early papyri do not have paragraph markings or divisions.
  The editor who put them in Vaticanus may have had aural divisions in mind,
or not.  I have no trouble believing that the editor was astute enough to be
aware of this.  By the time they were added to the mss, there were surely
other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading.

    You may also want to take a look at another method for chapter division
common in the NT manuscripts (eg, Sinaiticus), called the Eusebian Canon.
 Eusebius divided the gospel texts into "kephalalia" (chapters).  And it is
also an *indexing* system for the gospels and was intended to be used as a
method for providing a synopsis of the Gospels.
   The bottom number is the canon (or index) number. Each canon represents a
relationship of passages in the 4 gospels.   Canon I references material
common to all four.  Canons II - IV indexes materials common to 3 gospels.
 Canons V - IX indexes passages common to 2 gospels.  Canon X indexes (in
four lists) unique passages in each of the gospels.
   You can find Eusebius' letter to Carpian explaining this in the intro
material in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 26th ed. on pages [73*]-[74*]. The
Eusebian indexes follow.

   I noticed that the kephala markings in the Vaticanus leaf I examined
matched that of the Eusebian kephala, except that Eusebius had a few more
divisions.

   I hope this wasn't too basic for your needs, and was maybe along the lines
of what you were looking for.     

Tim Staker
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:04:07 -0500 (EST)

> other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading.

I am not certain whether the original reference was to the sectional 
markings (which were added later) or to certain lines in which the 
initial letter is set off to the left to indicate a paragraph or sorts 
(which is due to the original scribe).  That there was some sort of early 
paragraphing utilized in Vaticanus is certain; whether it agrees with 
later divisions would have to be verified.

---

From: Timothy John Finney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:19:20 +0800 (WST)

I've just had a look at my transcription of Vaticanus. Unlike other
uncials, Vaticanus does not use the left indent to mark paragraphs (in
Hebrews, at least). The only indication of paragraphing is occasional
spacing following stops. 

Tim Finney
Baptist Theological College
20 Hayman Rd, Bentley WA 6102
Australia

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 21:19:41 -0500 (EST)

> Hebrews, at least). The only indication of paragraphing is occasional

I will have to look at my microfilm copy once more.  I was under the 
impression that certain lines were left-indented in Vaticanus as well as 
in Sinaiticus (where I know for certain they exist).

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================

---

From: Andrew Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 01:15:24 -0500 (EST)

Hello,

BHS uses a siglum to refer to a particular manuscript of the LXX.  
However, I cannot seem to figure out which manuscript that is, and the 
Prolegomena does not seem to have this siglum in its list.  The siglum is 
a Gothic G with a rather sickly-looking theta to its right in superscript 
(as well as a ' marker next to this letter).

An example of it may be seen in notes d and e to Daniel 7:1.  My first 
guess was that this refers to a recension of LXX by Theodotion.  However, 
I have no idea if Theodotion ever did a recension of the LXX.  Also, I 
have not read much Greek outside of very modern, standardized tyepfaces.  
Am I correct to assume that this is an alternate form of a theta?

thank you all very much,

cheers,

andrew gross

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 15:02:39 -0500 (EST)

> Am I correct to assume that this is an alternate form of a theta?

Quite definitely this is to the Theodotian recension of Daniel, which can 
be seen more clearly in Rahlfs' edition of the LXX.

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 02:27:43 -0500 (EST)

> (as well as a ' marker next to this letter).

Andrew,

As noted already by Maurice A. O'Sullivan, the theta does refer to the 
Theodotionic version of Daniel.  You can find this fact documented in BHS 
itself at the beginning of the critical apparatus of Daniel 1:1.  Though 
identified with Theodotion, the translation actually predates the fourth 
century (and the first, since it is quoted in the NT), as so is more 
properly called Ur-Theodotion (apparently distinct from the 2nd century 
proto-Theodotion--some would deny any connection with the Theodotionic 
tradition).  Only one complete ms of LXX-Daniel exists, ms 88.  It is 
joined by the Syro-Hexapla and another incomplete Greek ms (967) as the 
primary witnesses to LXX-Daniel.  Almost all other witnesses are Th-Daniel.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------