Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:30:34.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paragraphos, Not Obelos, in Codex Vaticanus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2019

Jan Krans
Jan Krans*
Affiliation:
Protestantse Theologische Universiteit and Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: j.l.h.krans@pthu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are serious problems with P. Payne's discussion of ‘distigmai’ in Codex Vaticanus, and more in particular with his identification and interpretation of so-called ‘distigme-obelos’ combinations. The ‘distigmai’ remain elusive and any ‘distigme-obelos’ is coincidental.

Keywords

distigmeobelosparagraphosPayneVaticanus1 Cor 14.34–5
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 252 - 257
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Payne, P., ‘Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5’, NTS 63 (2017) 604–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Payne, P., ‘Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–35’, NTS 41 (1995) 240–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 44 (1998) 152–8; ‘The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus’, NovT 42 (2000) 105–13 (with P. Canart); ‘The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34–5: A Response to J. Edward Miller’, JSNT 27 (2004) 105–12; ‘Distigmai Matching the Original Ink of Codex Vaticanus: Do They Mark the Location of Textual Variants?’, Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus Graecus 1209): introduction au fac-similé. Actes du Colloque de Genève (11 juin 2001). Contributions supplémentaires (ed. P. Andrist; HTB 7; Lausanne: Zèbre, 2009) 199–225 (with P. Canart). Payne tends to answer his critics extensively. The exception is the excellent discussion by Kloha, J., A Textual Commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (Leeds: [s.n.], 2006) 499–520Google Scholar, to which Payne to my knowledge never reacted, though he refers to Kloha's work in ‘Distigme-obelos’, 616 n. 41.

3 The suggestion is already made in Payne and Canart, ‘Distigmai’, 216, for the Pericope de adultera and for 1 Cor 14.34–5.

4 Statistical tests as conducted by Miller, J. (‘Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34–35,’ JSNT 26 (2003) 217–36)Google Scholar offer the strongest indication that at least many distigmai have been entered as a reminder of the existence of some variant reading at their respective locations.

5 The dissertation by Gravely, E. (The Text Critical Sigla in Codex Vaticanus (Wake Forest, NC: [s.n.], 2009))Google Scholar contains an appendix that lists known variant readings at distigme locations. Besides many places without known variation, there are many others where a completely uninteresting spelling variant is given.

6 ‘Originality’, 109 n. 25.

7 Despite the fact that Payne singles out fifty-one distigmai as matching the original colour of Vaticanus (‘Distigmai’, 204), and hence ‘penned as part of the original production of the codex’ (209), he considers the distigmai that show a different colour to have been reinforced and part of the original set as well (214–16).

8 Payne repeatedly refers to personal inspection of the manuscript (e.g. ‘Originality’, 107).

9 Interestingly, a far later use of distigmai, namely as a reference system between text and marginal notes, can be observed in min. 1780, at f. 168r (1 Tim 1.1–2.3). Here distigmai and notes are clearly even later than the original thirteenth-century hand. I thank Tommy Wasserman for bringing this manuscript to my attention.

10 This class of eight places actually constitutes a refinement of Payne's earlier position. As early as 1995 he wrote about twenty-seven instances of ‘bar-umlaut’ in Codex Vaticanus (‘Fuldensis’, 251 etc.), eight of which have now become a category on their own.

11 In his earliest article Payne did discuss these instances (‘Fuldensis’, 256–7). For the twelve places he mentions (forgetting Mark 7.13–14 1287 C 14), he deduces that the distigme refers to additional words in eight of these. In all but one (Matt 3.15–16 1237 C 30) it relates to an addition of at least two words, though the interpretation of the distigme at John 7.52 (1361 C 3) is dubious, for it is one line too high to possibly refer to the Pericope de adultera. As is usual, Vaticanus is referred to with page, column and line.

12 Payne points to Jas 4.4 (1428 C 22) to show that at least some horizontal bars cannot be interpreted as paragraphoi (‘Fuldensis’, 255; also ‘Distigmai’, 200), but that conclusion is incorrect, and is (again) induced by focusing exclusively on the conjunction of distigme and paragraphoi. A study of all paragraphoi yields many more that mark divisions less obvious to modern scholars, at odds with modern editorial practice. See also Miller, ‘Observations’, 221 with n. 14.

13 Just a few random examples of a relatively ‘long’ paragraphos without distigme at the same line include 1236 B 9; 1238 B 27; 1238 B 31; 1239 B 5; 1241 B 9; 1252 C 13; 1255 C 31; 1256 B 17; 1257 B 3; 1258 A 1.

14 Payne, ‘Symbols’, 6. Ἰησοῦς could be seen as an addition to αὐτὸς δέ, but it is not a ‘multi-word addition’, and is not found at the location Payne indicates. Payne should have mentioned the addition of εἴδοτες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν in f 13 etc. (recorded in Syn15, not in NA28 or Ti8).

15 Miller (‘Observations’, 235) and Kloha (Commentary, 514–16) also give this possibility.

16 The only valid external argument is the transposition of 1 Cor 14.34–5 in some manuscripts. Of course, transposition itself is never proof of interpolation. It can only be invoked as part of a conjectural scenario, in which at an early stage of the transmission a marginal note in one manuscript was included at different places in subsequent copies. Moreover, the argument is only applicable to a specific interpolation conjecture (the omission of vv. 34–5), whereas several others have been proposed. See The Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation (ed. J. Krans, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte et al.; http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures) for more information.