A Critique of Theological Palaeography

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1937
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: A Critique of Theological Palaeography

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:21 amI discussed this a while back with Brent Nongbri. He placed some of the controversial papyri with a rather late terminus ante quem, perhaps AD 500, even though they could have been written c. AD 200.
I had a discussion with Brent Nongbri in May 2021 and asked him what he thought which were the mss (or fragments) best capable of being dated prior to 325 CE. His response was that the four rolls are possibly prior to 325 CE. All Christian mss and fragments are known to be from codices except in four instances where the media is not codices but rolls. These are as follows

1. DP24 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura_Parchment_24

2. P.G., XI, 41-85 Origen to Africanus --- The learned Julius Africanus consulted him, Origen's reply being extant .

3. P.Oxy 405 Irenaeus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_405

4. LDAB 4669 ---- OSI 11.1200 "nomina sacra" PSI 11.1200; LDAB 4669
Steven Avery
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

A Critique of Theological Palaeography - three crosses note in Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery »

Thanks.

Brent makes a good point that without external verification dates should be rather soft on the terminus ante quem.
Script analysis does not by itself control palaeographic date analysis.
The external verification may apply to all the above. I remember Brent sent me one papyri external date example, maybe I have it handy.

If you want an excellent example of theological palaeography, I suggest you look at the scriptorium error note in Sinaiticus describing a blunder they made with a double writing section, the Three Crosses note.
Steven Avery
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Theological Palaeography - Codex Sinaiticus, the Three Crosses note

Post by Steven Avery »

Here is Tischendorf writing about the three crosses note, in the translation of his 1850 book on the Septuagint:

Vetus Testamentum graece juxta LXX interpretes (1850)
Prolegomena p. LI
Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=0wNNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR51

Translated by:

Charles Short (1821-1886)
https://books.google.com/books?id=aqMRLa9xVe8C&pg=PA5

Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review, Volume 10 (1853)
https://books.google.com/books?id=P_oRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107
ARTICLE IV.
PROLEGOMENA TO TI8CHENDORF'S NEW EDITION OF TIIE SEPTUAG1NT.
Translated from the Latin by Charles Short, M. A., Roxbury, Mass.
[Concluded from Vol. IX. p. 608.]
1852 first section is at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NWRPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA581

=====================

Tischendorf-Short
But how it happened that the same correctors did not even touch the first four leaves of the books of Chronicles, though the note testifies that these books were contained in the copy of Pamphilus, may be learned from what is found written by the third hand at the bottom of the fourth leaf, with the sign of a triple cross affixed. This is as follows:

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι το τελοϲ των επτα φυλλων τω περιϲϲων κ(αι) μη οντω του εϲ δρα

SA Note
Greek transcription from the Codex Sinaiticus Project.
On the manuscript it goes like this:

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα
φυλλων τω
περιϲϲων κ(αι)
μη οντω
του εϲ
δρα

Tischendorf-Short
It is thus testified that these four leaves, along with three others long since destroyed, were not so much inserted in the codex in an improper place, as introduced by mistake on the part of the copyist and perhaps twice written on. It was for this reason, I think, they were passed over by the reviser.

=====================

Here is the note on the manuscript, bottom of the 4th column (it originally started higher on the column but was moved down.)

1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

=====================

Tischendorf's explanation is simple and sensible, this was a scriptorium note acknowledging the scribal blunder.

=====================

This post, with some PICS included, is at:

Pure Bible Forum
three crosses note explained by Tischendorf in his 1850 LXX book, translated by Charles Short
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... hort.2844/
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Theological Palaeography - Codex Sinaiticus and the Hermas retroversion

Post by Steven Avery »

Another example of Sinaiticus theological palaeography relates to the linguistic argument of James Donaldson that Athous (Simonides 1856) and Sinaiticus/Simoneidos (Sinai, 1859, extracted by Tischendorf) had to be much later than Tischendorf's 4th century date.

Here is Tischendorf making that argument on one fascinating example.
Tischendorf on Hermas Maximo
Steven Avery
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Tischendorf writes of leaves destroyed - Codex Sinaiticus, the Three Crosses note

Post by Steven Avery »

Steven Avery wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:51 pm Tischendorf-Short
It is thus testified that these four leaves, along with three others long since destroyed, were not so much inserted in the codex in an improper place, as introduced by mistake on the part of the copyist and perhaps twice written on. It was for this reason, I think, they were passed over by the reviser.
Supposedly Tischendorf only had those 43 leaves.
Most of Sinaiticus was abstracted in 1859, many years after this was written.

So how did Tischendorf possibly know about three leaves destroyed or lost ?????

Was Tischendorf the one who destroyed them?

All that the note itself says:

‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven
leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras.’
(The Greek is above on the earlier post.)
μεχρι του ϲημειου τω τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι το τελοϲ των επτα φυλλων τω περιϲϲων κ(αι) μη οντω του εϲ δρα

======================================

The Latin sentence translated by Charles Short:

Testantur igitur, ista folia quattuor una cum tribus aliis dudum deperditis alieno loco non tam codici inserta quam ex librarii errore illata ac fortasse bis exarata esse.
Post Reply