Subject: tc-list Petropolitanus?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:10:24 -0400

> The names given to manuscripts often derive from historical circumstances.
> For example the NT ms Codex Bezae retains that name even though Theodore
> Bezae died centuries ago.  Likewise, Codex Leningradensis (Evr. II.B.19a)
> became the standard name for that manuscript ever since the appearance of
> BHK, based on that manuscript.  To maintain a degree of continuity with the
> standard name and abbreviation, Leningradensis has been retained; St.
> Petersburg is used, of course, when identifying the library in which it is
> housed.

This is my problem, we call the library by its proper name but use 
another name for the manuscript. Yes the continuity is maintained, 
but a wrong kind of continuity.

We do not change the name of Codex Bezae without a sufficient reason 
and that is good. That is exactly my point. Yes, Theodore Beza 
is dead, but we still call the manuscript Codex Bezae. That is the 
way it should be. On the other hand, Codex Leningradensis is a change 
of name, since before 1917 the manuscript was known under other 
name(s), but never Lenigradensis. So Leningradensis does not maintain 
a degree of continuity! It constitutes a rather unwarranted change 
due to political circumstances. My guess is that the name was 
"disseminated" by BHK and other popular editions probably without 
much contemplation and with no sinister motives. Simply 
Leningradensis means "of Leningrad," it is not a proper name, but an 
adjective. The name Leningradensis was appropriate as long as the 
city had that name. I will look for pre-1917 names to see which was 
commonly accepted and would appreciate any input on this matter.

> Petropolitanus is a different manuscript, housed in the same library and
> numbered Firk. I B 3.  This name was used ever since Strack published an
> edition of it in 1876.  On the other hand B19a was described, if at all, in
> the pre-1917 literature in a variety of ways.  Ginsburg, for example,
> called it "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 1009," to distinguish it
> from what most textual scholars considered at the time to be a more
> important manuscript, "the St. Petersburg Codex dated A. D. 916," or just
> "the St. Petersburg manuscript," i. e. Codex Petropolitanus.

I am not sure that I understand this. H. B. Sweete in his 
"Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek" has "Codex 
Petropolitanus" (p. 138), but this is a Greek manuscript not Hebrew. 
Do you have the Greek manuscript in mind when you write "the St. 
Petersburg Codex dated AD 916 under the number Firk I B 3? 

As I see it manuscripts are named after:

(1) the library or place where they were discovered, like Sinaiticus 
although now in London

(2) the name of the owner or a person associated with it, like Bezae, 
Jung codex, or Brucianus. 

(3) the library and the city in which the codex is stored, like 
Vaticanus, Washingtoniensis, Bodleianus. This is the case with 
Leningradensis, it means "of Leningrad." As you write, pre-1917 names 
reflect the fact that the manuscript was in St. Petersburg.

Therefore, to use the name Leningrad Codex or Leningradensis is wrong 
for three reasons:

1. It is not the original name of the codex

2. It does not reflect the fact that the codex is now (again) in St. 
Petersburg library.

3. It associates the codex with the city of Leningrad only out of 
habit, and a bad habit I would say. St. Petersburg was called 
Leningrad only from 1917 to 1991.

Thus, if the name of the manuscript reflects the name of the library 
and the city which preserves it, than, I think, Petropolitanus or 
St. Petersburg Codex is much more appropriate then Leningradensis or 
Leningrad Codex. If, on the other hand, we want to keep the original 
name, that we should use a pre-1917 name. If there is possibility of 
confusion that a mark of distinction could be added like 
Petropolitanus Graece or Petropolitanus Hebraice (I hope my Latin is 
correct here and elsewhere).

Finally, I very much appreciate the facsimile edition of the manuscript 
in St. Petersburg public library under the number B19a, but to call 
it Leningrad Codex now nine years after the fall of Berlin wall is an 
oversight. For years to come the students will call it Leningrad 
Codex. I only want some consistency here, if we switched the name 
after 1917 when the city became Leningrad, why not switch now in 1998 
since the city is called St. Petersburg. This seems not only fair 
but politically neutral.

Yours,

Alexander
Alexander Mirkovic
Vanderbilt University
[email-masked]
615-421-8331

Summus ius, summa iniuria - Cicero