Page 3 of 4
Re: Codex E
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:31 pm
by Jax
Thank you for that link. I wonder, do you know, is the codex written in Latin first on the left hand column and then translated into the Greek on the right? This is what it seems like to me, where the author had two copies of Acts, one Latin and one Greek, and first wrote the Latin out and then found the Greek equivalent word in the Greek text for the left column. Unfortunately, I read neither Latin or Greek well enough to tell on my own.
Lane
Re: Codex E
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:35 am
by mlinssen
Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:31 pm
Thank you for that link. I wonder, do you know, is the codex written in Latin first on the left hand column and then translated into the Greek on the right? This is what it seems like to me, where the author had two copies of Acts, one Latin and one Greek, and first wrote the Latin out and then found the Greek equivalent word in the Greek text for the left column. Unfortunately, I read neither Latin or Greek well enough to tell on my own.
Lane
Codex E is a bi-lingual manuscript containing the text of Acts in Greek and Latin. The use of so-called 'nomina sacra' in the manuscript presents one or two unusual features. In the Greek column, most of the expected abbreviations occur; but there are over twenty occurrences where one would expect to find an abbreviation for one of the four alleged 'base' words of the system (God, Christ, Jesus, Lord) but where the word is written in full. Proportionally (in relation to the length of the manuscript), this figure may be unusually high. In the Latin column, there are virtually no abbreviations at all, a phenomenon which is very unusual amongst Latin biblical manuscripts. The article attempts primarily to present this evidence. In addition, some possible further considerations are offered which might suggest (albeit tentatively) that the number of non-abbreviations in the Greek column may have been even higher in an earlier Vorlage of the text. Hence codex E appears to be a witness to the fact that the abbreviations of some of the key words, even in Christian biblical manuscripts, may not have been as uniform as some in recent studies have maintained
The so-called nomina sacra are very far from uniformly used.
The abbreviations came first, the attempts to interpret them much, much later - and in that way the Greek would seem to predate the Latin here, if it weren't for the fact that the texts were likely written simultaneously or even by the same scribe (I have no idea, have never even glanced at it)
The number of line-ending Nu's should be indicative as well, in Bezae the Greek ones are twice as many as the Latin ones (top of my head)
Re: Codex E
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 3:41 pm
by Jax
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:35 am
Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:31 pm
Thank you for that link. I wonder, do you know, is the codex written in Latin first on the left hand column and then translated into the Greek on the right? This is what it seems like to me, where the author had two copies of Acts, one Latin and one Greek, and first wrote the Latin out and then found the Greek equivalent word in the Greek text for the left column. Unfortunately, I read neither Latin or Greek well enough to tell on my own.
Lane
Codex E is a bi-lingual manuscript containing the text of Acts in Greek and Latin. The use of so-called 'nomina sacra' in the manuscript presents one or two unusual features. In the Greek column, most of the expected abbreviations occur; but there are over twenty occurrences where one would expect to find an abbreviation for one of the four alleged 'base' words of the system (God, Christ, Jesus, Lord) but where the word is written in full. Proportionally (in relation to the length of the manuscript), this figure may be unusually high. In the Latin column, there are virtually no abbreviations at all, a phenomenon which is very unusual amongst Latin biblical manuscripts. The article attempts primarily to present this evidence. In addition, some possible further considerations are offered which might suggest (albeit tentatively) that the number of non-abbreviations in the Greek column may have been even higher in an earlier Vorlage of the text. Hence codex E appears to be a witness to the fact that the abbreviations of some of the key words, even in Christian biblical manuscripts, may not have been as uniform as some in recent studies have maintained
The so-called nomina sacra are very far from uniformly used.
The abbreviations came first, the attempts to interpret them much, much later - and in that way the Greek would seem to predate the Latin here, if it weren't for the fact that the texts were likely written simultaneously or even by the same scribe (I have no idea, have never even glanced at it)
The number of line-ending Nu's should be indicative as well, in Bezae the Greek ones are twice as many as the Latin ones (top of my head)
You should really look it over. It's super easy to scan and gives some interesting insights into the author.
Re: Codex E
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:10 pm
by Jax
On this page we have dei as ThEOY with no O in front and further down is deo as TOThO
https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objec ... ec310c2fb/
Re: Codex E
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:20 pm
by Jax
Re: Codex E
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:47 pm
by mlinssen
Amazing! I love the diaresis on top of the y, the u, the i.
Yet FILIUMIESSE being the same as TONTOUIESSAI?
REGEM and BASILEA, likewise: accusative of KING versus nominative of KINGDOM (queendom, to be exact)
You know, I see a lot of this IESSE, in the NHL as well. Needless to say, it fits the profile for IS - haven't looked any closer than that really
Re: Codex E
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:57 pm
by mlinssen
Meaning that they could be explanation attempts. There's a whole quote in the NHL, something like Jesse Macareus Jessedeceus - which strongly reminds me of IS Makarios IS de Theos / Deus
Shooting from the hip there, but it's one of the oddities I've run into
Re: Codex E
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:09 pm
by Jax
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:47 pm
Amazing! I love the diaresis on top of the y, the u, the i.
Yet FILIUMIESSE being the same as TONTOUIESSAI?
REGEM and BASILEA, likewise: accusative of KING versus nominative of KINGDOM (queendom, to be exact)
You know, I see a lot of this IESSE, in the NHL as well. Needless to say, it fits the profile for IS - haven't looked any closer than that really
The whole thing strikes me as a exercise. I see things like a Latin word that was obviously written first followed by a Greek word in the right column. It's as if someone is transcribing a Greek copy of Acts, one word at a time, into Latin, they see the Greek word and then find the corresponding Latin word from a Latin copy of Acts and write out the Latin word first. I just wish I understood these languages better.
Re: Codex E
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:19 pm
by mlinssen
Jax wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:09 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:47 pm
Amazing! I love the diaresis on top of the y, the u, the i.
Yet FILIUMIESSE being the same as TONTOUIESSAI?
REGEM and BASILEA, likewise: accusative of KING versus nominative of KINGDOM (queendom, to be exact)
You know, I see a lot of this IESSE, in the NHL as well. Needless to say, it fits the profile for IS - haven't looked any closer than that really
The whole thing strikes me as a exercise. I see things like a Latin word that was obviously written first followed by a Greek word in the right column. It's as if someone is transcribing a Greek copy of Acts, one word at a time, into Latin, they see the Greek word and then find the corresponding Latin word from a Latin copy of Acts and write out the Latin word first. I just wish I understood these languages better.
Get Berean Interlinear, it will surely help you with Greek. Then get Bezae and you'll have your Latin. Go to Bill Mounce's for the nitty gritty details, the biblehub stuff underlying what you click in Berean tends to be buried under dogmatic translations.
I just finished the Oxy copies, wrote my own translation to each and it's horrible Greek, and so is that of the NT.
I'll look into your stuff in a few weeks Jax, pressed for time at the mo
Re: Codex E
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:55 am
by Jax
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:19 pm
Jax wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:09 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:47 pm
Amazing! I love the diaresis on top of the y, the u, the i.
Yet FILIUMIESSE being the same as TONTOUIESSAI?
REGEM and BASILEA, likewise: accusative of KING versus nominative of KINGDOM (queendom, to be exact)
You know, I see a lot of this IESSE, in the NHL as well. Needless to say, it fits the profile for IS - haven't looked any closer than that really
The whole thing strikes me as a exercise. I see things like a Latin word that was obviously written first followed by a Greek word in the right column. It's as if someone is transcribing a Greek copy of Acts, one word at a time, into Latin, they see the Greek word and then find the corresponding Latin word from a Latin copy of Acts and write out the Latin word first. I just wish I understood these languages better.
Get Berean Interlinear, it will surely help you with Greek. Then get Bezae and you'll have your Latin. Go to Bill Mounce's for the nitty gritty details, the biblehub stuff underlying what you click in Berean tends to be buried under dogmatic translations.
I just finished the Oxy copies, wrote my own translation to each and it's horrible Greek, and so is that of the NT.
I'll look into your stuff in a few weeks Jax, pressed for time at the mo
Right on. I have Bill Mounce's book on beginner Greek and was actually ready to dig into Bezae. So far so good.
