R. Perkins wrote: ↑
December 27th, 2018, 5:10 am
Tony Pope wrote: ↑
December 26th, 2018, 5:15 am
This manuscript is a 12th century codex of the four gospels, housed in the University Library in Basel and known as GA 2 in the standard numbering system. There is an online colour image of the page at http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/ ... 20/10/2282
In 2016, the 500th anniversary of the first edition of Erasmus' NT, the University Library published a collection of articles as part of the celebrations. In an article on the various manuscripts Erasmus used, Dr Patrick Andrist notes that the markings in red were not made by Erasmus himself but by the typesetters, who were using this manuscript as the basis for the printed edition and made the marks to indicate their page breaks. Thus "119" presumably corresponds to page 119 in Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum
Tony - if I may ask, where did you locate the info. in the last paragraph. This is very relevant data and I would like to be able to find these things myself (w.out having to burden anyone else
I got this information from my own paper copy of the book Das bessere Bild Christi
, for which I see Amazon charges a considerable price. (I bought it at an exhibition in Basel at a reasonable price.)
However, I have now found a brief mention in Scrivener's Plain Introduction
, 4th ed., Vol 1, p. 191. https://archive.org/details/cu31924092355100/page/n249
S Walch wrote: ↑
December 27th, 2018, 5:44 am
Tony Pope wrote: ↑
December 27th, 2018, 3:59 am
The raised theta on παρθένον and παρθένου is surely not a correction but a deliberate abbreviation used by some scribes. Here is another example in GA 19: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/ ... 240/10/339
I presume, given the reference to Mary, it comes in the category of nomina sacra.
Ah, thanks for that, Tony.
After looking at the image of GA 2 and not seeing any other correction like it (not to mention the missing ε as well), I had wondered whether the latter rather than the former of my comments regarding the reading was the correct way of seeing it. Especially with it being a reference to Mary's virginity.
Do you happen to know the earliest known usage of this in the manuscripts? Be interesting to see how far it goes.
As for classing it as a nomina sacra; think we reserve that for words with overbars. "Special Titles" (titles special) for things such as this maybe?
I had never come across this particular abbreviation myself, but I've had a bit of fun finding a few things out. Scrivener mentions it on p. 50 of his Plain Introduction
, 4th ed., Vol 1.
The manuscript he refers to as Bodleian Genesis is an uncial, apparently 9th or 10th century. Here is a link to Tischendorf's facsimile of it, on line 3 of which the abbreviation occurs (from Genesis 24.55), showing an overline as well as the raised theta: https://archive.org/details/Tischendorf ... /page/n289
Even though those minuscule scribes didn't use an overline, I'm not sure it's worth inventing a separate category to describe this phenomenon.