Volume 29 (2024)

Articles

Martijn Beukenhorst, The Quedlinburg Itala: New Text-Critical Insights from an Almost Forgotten Manuscript (pp. 1–20)

Abstract: Recent research into the Old Latin of Samuel–Kings has shown the usefulness of this manuscript tradition for textual criticism, while also showing the complex nature of its individual witnesses. This article looks at the Quedlinburg Itala, La116, one of only two remaining manuscript witnesses of the Old Latin text of Samuel–Kings. Even though only six leaves are preserved, the Quedlinburg Itala represents an important and extremely valuable witness to the complexity of the textual history of the Old Latin. The aim of this article is to look at the text-critical value of the preserved textual segments by discussing important variants preserved in Quedlinburg, specifically 2 Sam 2:29, 2 Sam 2:31, 1 Kgs 5:30, and 1 Kgs 6:3. Quedlinburg is an unaligned document that has seen several changes in its transmission history. It nonetheless provides us with useful new insights in multiple text-critical issues.

Dionisio Candido, What Book of Esther Did Josephus Read? A Special Focus on the Old Latin (pp. 21–44)

Abstract: The biblical sources of Flavius Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities are still uncertain. Literary investigations have shown Josephus’s freedom in paraphrasing biblical accounts and omitting or adding sections, according to his own purposes. From a textual-critical point of view, the case of the Jewish Antiquities’s section on the book of Esther (11.184–296) is particularly complicated, since it is attested in three main variant editions: the Masoretic Text, the Old Greek, and the Alpha Text. This article will first offer an investigation of the readings that can be traced back to these three versions. It will also show how the Jewish Antiquities made different use of these versions in quantitative and qualitative terms. Second, the paper presents the alignments between the Jewish Antiquities and the Old Latin. The article will not only analyze the value of the alignments that have already been identified but also point to some new ones. The analysis provides a clearer view of the biblical sources Josephus employed in his rewrite of Esther.

C. E. Hill, The New Testament Citing the New Testament in (Copies of) the New Testament: Diples and Testimony Lists in Early Manuscripts (pp. 45–70)

Abstract: This essay considers two scribal projects from antiquity that record a belief that some New Testament authors at times cited the work of other New Testament writers. The scribes of the fourth- or fifth-century pandects, Sinaiticus (01 א), Alexandrinus (A 02), Vaticanus (B 03), and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04), sometimes placed diples (>) in left-hand margins to mark where a New Testament writer has cited an Old Testament book. This essay identifies three New Testament passages (Acts 13:25; 1 Tim 5:18b; 2 Pet 1:17) that receive diples in one or more of the pandects and suggests that these diples denote a belief that the authors, Luke, Paul, and Peter, were reliant upon one of the New Testament gospels. The second scribal project is the μαρτύρια lists within the Euthalian Apparatus for Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline Epistles, which record testimonies each book is believed to have taken from other sources. Here the sources are named and so are not ambiguous. The lists indicate a view that some New Testament authors cited not only Old Testament but also pagan, apocryphal, and New Testament predecessors. Seven testimonia are identified as deriving from one of the gospels (Acts 1:4–5; 13:25; 2 Pet 1:17; 2:20; 1 John 1:5; 1 Cor 11:24–25; 1 Tim 5:18b), including all three passages that receive diples in one of the pandects, each of the three being attributed to Matthew. The findings of this essay also shed further light on the origins of the Euthalian Apparatus and on the applicability of the term diplae sacrae.

Juha Pakkala, Editorial Techniques in Light of Textual Variants between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras (pp. 71–116)

Abstract: Textual variants between 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah show a consistent picture of editorial processes. Scribal changes were mostly small and isolated additions, which implies a shared scribal milieu where texts could be slightly expanded but where older textual segments were only rarely omitted. The revision that created 1 Esdras is an exception: omissions, replacements, transpositions, and large additions were much more widely used. For literary criticism (Literarkritik) the documented evidence in 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah provides an ambiguous result. Most additions and all replacements remain undetected. The creation of 1 Esdras is a particular challenge for the method, since it included major omissions and transpositions. On the other hand, changes other than additions were infrequent in the development of the texts. Critics probably notice a considerable number of additions that significantly changed the meaning of the text. This shows that the literary-critical method has its merits but needs to explore the documented evidence in much more detail and accept its limits.

Kirsten M. Schäfers, Zur Eigenart der LXX-Manuskripte der b-Gruppe in der Genesis: Spezielle Lesarten, exegetische Textplus/-minus und Berührungen mit der samaritanischen Texttradition (pp. 117–146)

Abstract: In the Greek textual history of Genesis, the so-called b-group stands out with unique readings. These readings received little attention in the last thirty years after John W. Wevers had concluded that the Lucianic text of Genesis cannot be found in this group and most likely never existed at all. This pre-study does not intend to reopen the quest for the Lucianic text. Rather, it opens up new perspectives on the age and relevance of b’s textual tradition against the background of more recent text-historical research. The article argues that not all unique readings in the b-group should be rejected as late and text-historically worthless. First, the current state of research is summarized briefly. Second, the text-historical significance of the b-group is examined by starting from the notoriously difficult Hebrew and Greek text in Gen 21:14. The subsequent analysis focuses on exegetical text pluses as well as conspicuous text minuses and a significant agreement with the Samaritan text tradition. Significant evidence allows for the conclusion that the exegetical text pluses and some conspicuous text minuses of the group have characteristics similar to the early harmonization phenomena attested by SP, LXX and some Qumran-MSS, more broadly also to those attested in the Antiochene Text of other books. For at least one manuscript (Ra 108) there are indications of contact with a Samareitikon tradition. Based on this evidence, an ancient age of many special readings in the b-group can be assumed with good reason. Thus, the text-historical value of this group of manuscripts potentially increases and should be investigated further.

German/Deutsch Abstract: In der griechischen Textgeschichte der Genesis sticht die sogenannte b-Gruppe mit singulären Lesarten hervor. Diese Lesarten fanden in den letzten dreißig Jahren wenig Beachtung, nachdem John W. Wevers zu dem Schluss gekommen war, dass der Lukianische Text der Genesis in der b-Gruppe nicht zu finden ist und höchstwahrscheinlich nie existiert hat. Die hier präsentierte Vorstudie beabsichtigt nicht, die Suche nach dem Lukianischen Text wiederaufzunehmen. Vielmehr eröffnet sie neue Perspektiven auf das Alter und die Relevanz der in b bewahrten Texttradition vor dem Hintergrund der neueren textgeschichtlichen Forschung. Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass nicht alle singulären Lesarten in der b-Gruppe pauschal als spät und textgeschichtlich wertlos verworfen werden sollten. Zunächst wird der aktuelle Forschungsstand kurz zusammengefasst. Anschließend wird die textgeschichtliche Relevanz der b-Gruppe untersucht. Ausgangspunkt ist der notorisch schwierige hebräische und griechische Text in Gen 21:14. Die anschließende Analyse konzentriert sich auf exegetische Textplus sowie auffällige Textminus und eine signifikante Übereinstimmung mit der samaritanischen Texttradition. Im Ergebnis finden sich exegetischen Textplus und einige auffällige Textminus, die ähnliche Merkmale aufweisen wie die frühen Harmonisierungsphänomene in SP, LXX und einigen Qumran-MSS. Im weiteren Sinne ähneln sie auch Harmonisierungen im Antiochenischen Text anderer Bücher. Für mindestens ein Manuskript (Ra 108) ist der Kontakt mit einer samaritanischen Tradition wahrscheinlich. Ein antikes Alter vieler Sonderlesarten in der b-Gruppe kann daher mit guten Gründen angenommen werden. Der textgeschichtliche Wert dieser Manuskriptgruppe steigt somit potenziell und sollte weiter untersucht werden.

Notes

Michelle D. Hunt and Kyle A. Rouse, Significant Sigla? Reconsidering the Apostrophe in P45 (pp. 147–160)

Abstract: In P45, an apostrophe-like marking appears following certain indeclinable Hebraic nouns. Previous scholarship has variously suggested that this notation functions as an aid for pronunciation or word recognition or as a marker of elision. The contexts in which the apostrophe appears in P45, however, do not support the proposals of these previous treatments. Because of the lacunose nature of P45, we are only able to identify the occurrences of an apostrophe-like marking in P45, note its inconsistent appearance after indeclinable names, and confirm that previous suggestions about the apostrophe’s function do not fully explain the function of the apostrophe in P45.

Aļesja Lavrinoviča, Misreading Tertullian and Other Remarks on 1 Cor 14:34-35: A Response to Joseph Wilson (pp. 161–172)

Abstract: This note is a short response to the article published by Joseph Wilson entitled “Recasting Paul as a Chauvinist within the Western Text-Type Manuscript Tradition: Implications for the Authorship Debate on 1 Corinthians 14.34–35.” In his article, Wilson aims to strengthen the arguments used by advocates of the so-called Corinthian slogan theory or the quotation/refutation (abbreviated Q/R) hypothesis, which considers 1 Cor 14:34–35 to be a Corinthian slogan that Paul refutes by two strong questions contained in verse 36. In addition to restating a special reading of verse 36 due to the two disjunctive particles ἤ that introduce the questions of verse 36, Wilson intensifies the Q/R hypothesis by reading 1 Cor 14:34–35 in light of Tertullian’s Against Marcion. Wilson suspects that it was Tertullian who introduced a chauvinistic reading of 1 Cor 14:34–36. Here I argue that Wilson misreads Tertullian, and I demonstrate that the interpretation of the syntactical function of the disjunctive particles as argued by the defenders of the Q/R hypothesis is untenable.

Jacob W. Peterson, See With What Variable Letter Sizes I Write: Response to William Varner on Gal 6:11 in Papyrus 46 (pp. 173–182)

Abstract: It has recently been suggested that the scribe of Papyrus 46 (P46) began writing in a larger script for Gal 6:11 in a visual nod to Paul’s own mention of writing with larger letters and as indication of how the scribe personally interpreted the passage. In this short note, I refute the claimed variation in letter size with paleographical analysis of the scribe’s letter formation, sizing, and variation in the immediate context of Gal 6:11 and in wider use. I then address the difficulty of ascertaining a scribe’s beliefs from what and how the scribe copied.

W. Andrew Smith, Data Democratization and Biblical Manuscript Studies: A Caution for the Age of Access (pp. 183–204)

Abstract: As manuscript transcriptions, images, and metadata become more widely available to the public through digital media, (nearly) gone are the days when a Richard Bentley would have to send a Johann Wettstein to a far-off library to acquire collations for his research. The modern Bentley can sit at his or her laptop and immediately access much of what was unavailable prior to the 1990s. While this remains a remarkable boon to scholarship and draws back the veil for the nonexpert, this paper explores the problems attending data democratization at a time when authority and expertise are devalued.

Pedagogical Note

Zacharias Shoukry, Textkritisches Übersetzen: Variantensensitivität in der Übersetzung neutestamentlicher Texte (pp. 205–232)

Abstract: Text-critical translating is an exegetical method that displays the different variants of a text within the translation. It communicates the results of textual criticism to a wider public. There are many translations of the biblical text. However, they usually offer only one variant of the textual tradition. Readers of translations might get the impression that the text they are reading is the undisputed and only version, while they are, in fact, dependent on the text-critical decisions of the translators. People who do not learn ancient Greek have no way of accessing the majority of the different variants of New Testament texts. Therefore, it is necessary to add a translation that shows the diversity of the textual traditions. The footnotes in conventional translations are a good start; however, they only discuss a limited number of variation units. The goal of a text-critical translation is to make more deviations transparent. This article suggests a way of doing that. Doubtful text is marked with brackets: […] and [[…]]. Omissions, indicated by “om.” and the symbols –, ° and ⸋ ⸌ are marked with braces: {…}. Insertions, indicated by “add.” and the symbols ⸆ and +, are marked with arrow brackets: < … >. Variants, indicated by the symbols ⸀ and ⸂ ⸃, will be translated within two vertical bars, adding slashes in between them: |… / … / …|. Because there are no official names for the symbols of the textual-critical apparatus as of yet, a table will introduce technical terms for them. This article explains the necessity and principles of a text-critical translation and showcases it with some examples.

Review Article

Nelson S. Hsieh, Charles Hill's The First Chapters: Dividing the Text of Scripture in Codex Vaticanus and Its Predecessors: A Review Article (pp. 233–280)

Abstract: Charles Hill’s The First Chapters provides the first ever monograph-length treatment of Codex Vaticanus’s chapter numbering. This article engages with three of Hill’s main arguments: (1) Hill argues that the chapter numbering was added during the original production of the manuscript. I agree, and I simplify Hill’s argument and provide additional palaeographical evidence. (2) Hill argues that Vaticanus’s chapter numbering derives from earlier attempts at textual division found in papyri such as P75. I disagree, except perhaps in John 1–5. (3) Hill argues that the most likely provenance for Vaticanus’s chapter numbering is third-century Caesarea and that perhaps Origen, Eusebius, and/or Pamphilus created the system. I tentatively agree based on the colophons found in some medieval manuscripts.

Reviews

Anneli Aejmelaeus, Drew Longacre, and Natia Mirotadze, eds., From Scribal Error to Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could Not Be Changed (Zachary Skarka, reviewer) (pp. 281–286)

Alan H. Cadwallader, Colossae, Colossians, Philemon: The Interface (An-Ting Yi, reviewer) (pp. 287–294)

Michael Dormandy, Building a Book of Books: Textual Characteristics of the Early Greek Majuscule Pandects (Dalton Hicks, reviewer) (pp. 295–302)

Stanley E. Porter, Chris E. Stevens, and David I. Yoon, eds., Studies on the Paratextual Features of Early New Testament Manuscripts (Dalton Hicks, reviewer) (pp. 303–312)

Annette Weissenrieder, ed., with André Luiz Visinoni, The Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke: A New Edition of the Codex Vercellensis Luke Based on Multi-spectral Images (Anna Persig, reviewer) (pp. 313–318)