Transcription and Translation of Old Greek Isaiah in Codex Marchalianus

[Ken M. Penner]

Those who followed the LXX Isaiah series here might be interested in the Transcription and Translation of Old Greek Isaiah in Codex Marchalianus I posted for discussion at https://www.academia.edu/48876991/Isaia ... ranslation

[S Walch]

Hello Ken - thanks for notifying concerning this. Am already looking through it!

Few quick questions: on Academia it's said this is the "Greek Text and Translation" of Marchalianus, but here you've referred to it as a "Transcription". Checking the images you handily link to, I can see it's not the sort of transcription I was anticipating - nomina sacra are written out in full, and words which break across lines on the manuscript you have on the line they start on. I'm presuming this is by design, or there's a different transcription convention you're employing in this case?

(First five lines following Marchalianus - parenthesis show missing letters from nomen sacrum; square brackets show superlinear letters)

Ὅρασις, ἣν εἶδεν Ἠσαίας υἱὸς Ἀμώς,
ἣν εἶδεν κατὰ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ κα
τὰ Ἰ(ερουσα)λήμ ἐν βασιλ[ε]ίᾳ Ὀζίου, καὶ Ἰω
αθὰμ, καὶ Ἀχὰζ καὶ Ἑζεκίου, οἵ
ἐβασίλευσαν τῆς Ἰουδαίας.~
Ἄκουε οὐ(ρα)νέ καὶ ἐνωτίζου γῆ, ὅτι Κ(ύριο)ς

[Ken M. Penner]

Few quick questions: on Academia it's said this is the "Greek Text and Translation" of Marchalianus, but here you've referred to it as a "Transcription". Checking the images you handily link to, I can see it's not the sort of transcription I was anticipating - nomina sacra are written out in full, and words which break across lines on the manuscript you have on the line they start on. I'm presuming this is by design, or there's a different transcription convention you're employing in this case?

Right. We expand abbreviations, capitalize, add spaces, accents, and punctuation, and normalize orthography according to modern editorial conventions. So it's more like an edition of the Greek text, like what Swete did with Vaticanus, Ottley did with Alexandrinus, and I did with Sinaiticus. The only reason I called it a transcription is the line and page breaks. In this case of Marchalianus, I have decided to approximate the lines and pages, shifting the breaks forward if necessary to avoid breaking up words.
But I have encoded the text in such a way that I can also easily produce an edition that follows the convention of filling the lines and pages. Which do you prefer?

[S Walch]

Oh no major preference; I'm just more used to the transcriptions of papyri etc., as seen in Oxyrhynchus volumes, and also as seen of NT MSS at the INTF. I do however prefer the capitalising, and adding spaces, accents, and punctuation.

Thanks for the explanation - was just curious!