Payne: Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:29 pm
Greetings all,
Here is an interesting and significant article by Philip B. Payne from the latest issue of New Testament Studies. It's available publically and is causing quite a stir.
Here is my link to the page on New Testament Studies, not sure if it works for everbody :
Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Edit: Here is the right link :
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121
Here is Payne's introduction (my bolding) :
"This article publishes for the first time all eight instances in codex Vaticanus B (henceforth, Vaticanus) where a distigme identifying a textual variant is combined with a bar that has five specific characteristics. It argues that just as bar-shaped obeloi in the Vaticanus prophets identify the locations of blocks of added text, so do all eight distigme-obelos symbols in the Vaticanus NT. Milne, Skeat and Canart ascribe each Vaticanus LXX book with obeloi and asterisks to the same scribe who penned the Vaticanus NT, scribe B. On the line to the right of each distigme-obelos symbol – except one with a downward stroke from both dots and the bar, indicating a different hand – is a gap (henceforth, ‘following gap’) in the text at the exact location of a multi-word block of text widely recognised as not original, but added later (henceforth, ‘added text’). Only the original scribe could have put these gaps in the text. The distigme at Luke 14.24 matches the original Vaticanus ink. Therefore, since obeloi mark the location of added text, their conjunction with a gap at the exact location of added text is most naturally explained if scribe B penned these symbols and left the following gap to mark where text was added.
"It appears that all studies of distigmai in Vaticanus agree that distigmai correlate closely with the location of textual variants. Probability tests confirm this correlation to a high degree of reliability. Ever since Canart concluded that fifty-one distigmai match the apricot colour of the original Vaticanus ink on the same page and identified traces of original ink protruding from some evidently re-inked distigmai, there has been a growing acceptance that at least the original-ink-colour distigmai date to the fourth century and mark the location of textual variants. Other surviving NT manuscripts contain a variant reading in over 92 per cent of these fifty-one distigme locations.
"This article begins by establishing the use of distigmai near the time of Vaticanus in the fourth- or fifth-century LXX G. It then provides evidence that scribe B repeatedly left comments explaining that obeloi signify added text. After analysing the eight distigme-obelos symbols in the Vaticanus NT, it argues from the form and function of their characteristic bars that it is highly improbable these eight bars are simply paragraphoi unrelated either to the distigme or to the added text at the exact point of the following gap.
"The article concludes by providing an explanation why the Vaticanus Gospels do not include any of the blocks of added text their five distigme-obelos symbols mark, but the Vaticanus epistles do include the block of added text their one distigme-obelos marks. The contrast between the presence of high stops throughout the Vaticanus epistles and their virtually complete absence from the Vaticanus Gospels indicates that practically all the Vaticanus Gospels’ text preceded the adding of high stops and so is earlier than the Vaticanus epistles’ text. It is even earlier than P75’s text, which has high stops throughout. This vindicates scholarly judgement that the Vaticanus Gospels’ text is earlier than its epistles’ text. Its text is so early that it preceded all five of its distigme-obelos-marked additions, hence their omission from its Gospels.
"This study demonstrates that scribe B was a careful textual critic who identifies 1 Cor 14.34–5, the only Bible passage silencing women in the church, as added text. Vaticanus provides early and credible judgement in what is widely regarded as the most important NT manuscript that vv. 34–5 were not in the body text Paul's original letter, but are a later addition. This is important theologically since it offers a resolution to the notorious difficulty of reconciling vv. 34–5 with Paul's many affirmations of women in vocal ministry and their equal standing with men in Christ."
Wow
This is why I might actually buy a copy of Linguists' Software's amazing replica of Codex Vaticanus that Phil Payne helped make (perhaps when Bitcoin hits $10K) :
Kapyong
Here is an interesting and significant article by Philip B. Payne from the latest issue of New Testament Studies. It's available publically and is causing quite a stir.
Here is my link to the page on New Testament Studies, not sure if it works for everbody :
Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5
Edit: Here is the right link :
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688517000121
Here is Payne's introduction (my bolding) :
"This article publishes for the first time all eight instances in codex Vaticanus B (henceforth, Vaticanus) where a distigme identifying a textual variant is combined with a bar that has five specific characteristics. It argues that just as bar-shaped obeloi in the Vaticanus prophets identify the locations of blocks of added text, so do all eight distigme-obelos symbols in the Vaticanus NT. Milne, Skeat and Canart ascribe each Vaticanus LXX book with obeloi and asterisks to the same scribe who penned the Vaticanus NT, scribe B. On the line to the right of each distigme-obelos symbol – except one with a downward stroke from both dots and the bar, indicating a different hand – is a gap (henceforth, ‘following gap’) in the text at the exact location of a multi-word block of text widely recognised as not original, but added later (henceforth, ‘added text’). Only the original scribe could have put these gaps in the text. The distigme at Luke 14.24 matches the original Vaticanus ink. Therefore, since obeloi mark the location of added text, their conjunction with a gap at the exact location of added text is most naturally explained if scribe B penned these symbols and left the following gap to mark where text was added.
"It appears that all studies of distigmai in Vaticanus agree that distigmai correlate closely with the location of textual variants. Probability tests confirm this correlation to a high degree of reliability. Ever since Canart concluded that fifty-one distigmai match the apricot colour of the original Vaticanus ink on the same page and identified traces of original ink protruding from some evidently re-inked distigmai, there has been a growing acceptance that at least the original-ink-colour distigmai date to the fourth century and mark the location of textual variants. Other surviving NT manuscripts contain a variant reading in over 92 per cent of these fifty-one distigme locations.
"This article begins by establishing the use of distigmai near the time of Vaticanus in the fourth- or fifth-century LXX G. It then provides evidence that scribe B repeatedly left comments explaining that obeloi signify added text. After analysing the eight distigme-obelos symbols in the Vaticanus NT, it argues from the form and function of their characteristic bars that it is highly improbable these eight bars are simply paragraphoi unrelated either to the distigme or to the added text at the exact point of the following gap.
"The article concludes by providing an explanation why the Vaticanus Gospels do not include any of the blocks of added text their five distigme-obelos symbols mark, but the Vaticanus epistles do include the block of added text their one distigme-obelos marks. The contrast between the presence of high stops throughout the Vaticanus epistles and their virtually complete absence from the Vaticanus Gospels indicates that practically all the Vaticanus Gospels’ text preceded the adding of high stops and so is earlier than the Vaticanus epistles’ text. It is even earlier than P75’s text, which has high stops throughout. This vindicates scholarly judgement that the Vaticanus Gospels’ text is earlier than its epistles’ text. Its text is so early that it preceded all five of its distigme-obelos-marked additions, hence their omission from its Gospels.
"This study demonstrates that scribe B was a careful textual critic who identifies 1 Cor 14.34–5, the only Bible passage silencing women in the church, as added text. Vaticanus provides early and credible judgement in what is widely regarded as the most important NT manuscript that vv. 34–5 were not in the body text Paul's original letter, but are a later addition. This is important theologically since it offers a resolution to the notorious difficulty of reconciling vv. 34–5 with Paul's many affirmations of women in vocal ministry and their equal standing with men in Christ."
Wow
This is why I might actually buy a copy of Linguists' Software's amazing replica of Codex Vaticanus that Phil Payne helped make (perhaps when Bitcoin hits $10K) :
Kapyong