Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Other Greek writings of the New Testament era, including papyri and inscriptions
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by R. Perkins » December 30th, 2017, 2:23 am

I came across Codex Regius recently & have been reading about it. Not sure why I don't read much about this codex since it's relatively early & it's my understanding that it's approx. 5th in line of the great uncial MSS (i.e., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Regius).

I understand that it's poorly copied in a bad hand, but, these other early MSS all have clear scribal errors as well. Just wondering why I rarely ever read anything about this majuscule (hope this is not in the wrong location or somehow out of place :oops:).

Links below:

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Reg ... Testament)
0 x



Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 31st, 2017, 10:28 am

I'm not sure what you are looking for. This manuscript seems to be discussed in various works, Wikipedia refers to some here:
I'm also not sure what you mean by "relatively early", is it 8th century?
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by R. Perkins » January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
December 31st, 2017, 10:28 am
I'm not sure what you are looking for. This manuscript seems to be discussed in various works, Wikipedia refers to some here:
I'm also not sure what you mean by "relatively early", is it 8th century?
Yes, ca. 8th cent., but, it is a majuscule obviously copied from a parent document. I just saw where someone had posted that it was considered 4th or 5th in the line of early NT documents (following Ephraemi Rescriptus), but I rarely ever see this MS referenced in publications (seems like I mostly just read of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & [less often] Ephraemi Rescriptus).

There is quite a different reading on John 1.1c in this MS - as well as Codex Washingtonianus (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032) - that actually reads καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Of course, this would make the preverbal PN articular - which would seem to have huge ramifications IMO :?:.

Just find it interesting that we rarely read about this meaningful variant & yet it appears in two unrelated majuscules (& NA28/UBS-5 do not even list it as a variant). Washingtonianus is actually quite earlier that Regius (4th-5th century) & reads the same way at J. 1.1c. From my (quite limited) perspective it would seem that text-critics would say more about these variants (?).

Didn't think about researching the fn. on Wikipedia :oops:. Thanks!
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 1st, 2018, 5:41 pm

First off, let me mention that you can see Codex Regius here:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b5 ... 62.langFR

Let me attempt an answer to a few things you said. I am not expert on this, but there are people here who are, and they will correct me where I am wrong.
R. Perkins wrote:
December 30th, 2017, 2:23 am
I came across Codex Regius recently & have been reading about it. Not sure why I don't read much about this codex since it's relatively early & it's my understanding that it's approx. 5th in line of the great uncial MSS (i.e., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Regius).
As I understand it, the great uncial codices contain the entire Greek Bible, both Septuagint and New Testament:
The great uncial codices or four great uncials are the only remaining uncial codices that contain (or originally contained) the entire text of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament).
Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.
Codex Regius contains only the Gospels (with some gaps), so it doesn't meet that definition.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am
Yes, ca. 8th cent., but, it is a majuscule obviously copied from a parent document. I just saw where someone had posted that it was considered 4th or 5th in the line of early NT documents (following Ephraemi Rescriptus), but I rarely ever see this MS referenced in publications (seems like I mostly just read of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & [less often] Ephraemi Rescriptus).
I don't know who is meant when you say "it was considered". Presumably, anyone who produces a critical edition quotes the manuscripts that it considers most significant and most reliable, and you can see that in the apparatus. If a manuscript is rarely referred to, that may indicate that it is considered less important or less interesting. If it is important or reliable, you would expect to see it in the apparatus. If it is only 4th or 5th in line for the Gospels, you might well hear less about it than you hear about the top 4 or so. And outside of the Gospels, you would not expect to hear of this Codex at all.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am
There is quite a different reading on John 1.1c in this MS - as well as Codex Washingtonianus (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032) - that actually reads καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Of course, this would make the preverbal PN articular - which would seem to have huge ramifications IMO :?:.

Just find it interesting that we rarely read about this meaningful variant & yet it appears in two unrelated majuscules (& NA28/UBS-5 do not even list it as a variant). Washingtonianus is actually quite earlier that Regius (4th-5th century) & reads the same way at J. 1.1c. From my (quite limited) perspective it would seem that text-critics would say more about these variants (?).
I am away from my library. What text critics have you read on John 1:1? What do they say about which sources they rely on and why? On B-Greek, we won't debate which reading is correct, of course, but text critics usually document this kind of thing.

FWIW, Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:
Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png (257.73 KiB) Viewed 854 times
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

R. Perkins
Posts: 74
Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm

Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by R. Perkins » January 1st, 2018, 8:46 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 5:41 pm
First off, let me mention that you can see Codex Regius here:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b5 ... 62.langFR

Let me attempt an answer to a few things you said. I am not expert on this, but there are people here who are, and they will correct me where I am wrong.
R. Perkins wrote:
December 30th, 2017, 2:23 am
I came across Codex Regius recently & have been reading about it. Not sure why I don't read much about this codex since it's relatively early & it's my understanding that it's approx. 5th in line of the great uncial MSS (i.e., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Regius).
As I understand it, the great uncial codices contain the entire Greek Bible, both Septuagint and New Testament:
The great uncial codices or four great uncials are the only remaining uncial codices that contain (or originally contained) the entire text of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament).
Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.
Codex Regius contains only the Gospels (with some gaps), so it doesn't meet that definition.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am
Yes, ca. 8th cent., but, it is a majuscule obviously copied from a parent document. I just saw where someone had posted that it was considered 4th or 5th in the line of early NT documents (following Ephraemi Rescriptus), but I rarely ever see this MS referenced in publications (seems like I mostly just read of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & [less often] Ephraemi Rescriptus).
I don't know who is meant when you say "it was considered". Presumably, anyone who produces a critical edition quotes the manuscripts that it considers most significant and most reliable, and you can see that in the apparatus. If a manuscript is rarely referred to, that may indicate that it is considered less important or less interesting. If it is important or reliable, you would expect to see it in the apparatus. If it is only 4th or 5th in line for the Gospels, you might well hear less about it than you hear about the top 4 or so. And outside of the Gospels, you would not expect to hear of this Codex at all.
R. Perkins wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am
There is quite a different reading on John 1.1c in this MS - as well as Codex Washingtonianus (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032) - that actually reads καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Of course, this would make the preverbal PN articular - which would seem to have huge ramifications IMO :?:.

Just find it interesting that we rarely read about this meaningful variant & yet it appears in two unrelated majuscules (& NA28/UBS-5 do not even list it as a variant). Washingtonianus is actually quite earlier that Regius (4th-5th century) & reads the same way at J. 1.1c. From my (quite limited) perspective it would seem that text-critics would say more about these variants (?).
I am away from my library. What text critics have you read on John 1:1? What do they say about which sources they rely on and why? On B-Greek, we won't debate which reading is correct, of course, but text critics usually document this kind of thing.

FWIW, Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:

Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png
Right, I have read John 1.1 in both Regius & Washingtonianus. I am also aware that Regius contains small lacunae. James Snapp observes:

Codex L is a very important manuscript of venerable age, and its readings were cited by Stephanus in the notes of his 1551 Greek New Testament; it was identified as witness ηʹ, that is, #8. This manuscript has long been recognized by the compilers of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as a member of the elite group of “Consistently cited witnesses of the first order” for all four Gospels – one of only eight uncial manuscripts that share this status. (http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017 ... ng-of.html)

Another excellent synopsis of this codex: https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzm ... s.html#uLe

Of course, I have read about Washingtonianus in many articles. The seemingly meaningful variant in John 1.1c from 2 eclectic - and 1 of them is pretty early (Washingtonianus) - MSS is interesting to me (Ehrman has some interesting things to say about this variant also). I had never even heard of this variant until the last week or so - and I guess I'm just wondering why (?).

Good point about the full texts of the other codices, hence the popularity (the very reason I come on here).
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 2nd, 2018, 8:50 am

R. Perkins wrote:
January 1st, 2018, 8:46 pm
James Snapp observes:

Codex L is a very important manuscript of venerable age, and its readings were cited by Stephanus in the notes of his 1551 Greek New Testament; it was identified as witness ηʹ, that is, #8. This manuscript has long been recognized by the compilers of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as a member of the elite group of “Consistently cited witnesses of the first order” for all four Gospels – one of only eight uncial manuscripts that share this status. (http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017 ... ng-of.html)
Sounds like the Nestle-Aland people are saying this is one of the witnesses they consistently cite, but also just one of eight uncial manuscripts in this category, and that's just the uncials, it does not include the Papyrii (or the miniscules and lectionaries).

At any rate, on B-Greek we don't debate textual criticism or which manuscripts should be cited in textual critical decisions. We do discuss what any given text means and how the Greek language works. But I suggest you read the text-critical notes for any critical edition if you want to understand why they cite which manuscripts. And if you want to discuss who is doing textual criticism right or wrong, I suggest you look into the textual criticism forum on Facebook.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply