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 ).
Links below:
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Reg ... Testament)
Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
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?
I'm also not sure what you mean by "relatively early", is it 8th century?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
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).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?
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 ὁ 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 . Thanks!
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
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.
FWIW, Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:
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.
As I understand it, the great uncial codices contain the entire Greek Bible, both Septuagint and New Testament: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).
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).
Codex Regius contains only the Gospels (with some gaps), so it doesn't meet that definition.Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex 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 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 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.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 5:49 amThere 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 ὁ 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 (?).
FWIW, Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: January 18th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
Right, I have read John 1.1 in both Regius & Washingtonianus. I am also aware that Regius contains small lacunae. James Snapp observes: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.
As I understand it, the great uncial codices contain the entire Greek Bible, both Septuagint and New Testament: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).
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).Codex Regius contains only the Gospels (with some gaps), so it doesn't meet that definition.Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex 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 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 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.R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 5:49 amThere 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 ὁ 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 (?).
FWIW, Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:
Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png
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).
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Codex Regius (GA 019 - Le)?
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).R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 8:46 pmJames 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)
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.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/