Editing the Gospel of John

October 30, 2009

A duplication

Filed under: Uncategorized — igntp @ 10:53 am

I noticed an interesting thing in 47 (St Gall 60, an Irish MS written in about 800. It is on page 60, and consists of a repeated section of text: lines 1-13 are repeated on lines 13-26. The scribe got mixed up with the repeated references to standing at the fire in vv. 18 and 25. There is of course no proof that this was done by the scribe and wasn’t in the exemplar already. But if we work on the basis that such an error was likely to have been screened out quite quickly. Admittedly, there is no sign here that anyone ever spotted a problem, and it’s weird that the section numbers in the margin just ignore the repeat and then carry on. But assuming that this was the scribe’s doing, we have the chance to assess his consistency. This is what I came up with:

47 screenshot

A few thoughts:

1. Verse 21 shows a place which the scribe got wrong twice. Hii/hi sciunt is probably intended (isti sciunt 13). Was there a confusing correction or mistake in the exemplar.

2. The layout comes out differently each time, so we can assume that the line lengths in the exemplar were different. Does the superline for m in verse 23 the second time give a hint as to the exemplar’s line break?

3. The rubrication comes out lighter the second time.

4. The punctuation is identical apart from the end of verse 20.

It would be very useful to build up a list of such places, as a way of assessing scribal accuracy. Here in 105 words (taking the repeat with only one ergo in verse 19, we have 6 textual differences, of which 4 are presentational. So there is about one difference in 50 words which might lead to a different form of text in a MS copied from 47.


October 22, 2009

More Greek variants for the Latin

Filed under: Uncategorized — igntp @ 11:17 am

Dear blog, I have been away a long time, with one thing and another. But now I am back working through Jn 18, selecting Greek variants to include in our edition of Old Latin John. Yesterday we (Rosalind, Philip Hugh and I) sat down and reviewed my work so far and discussed guidelines for including them. Here are some highlights of what I noted and we decided:

18.14: + και μη ολον (το) εθνοc αποληται is found in a number of minuscules, and + et no̅ tota gens pereat 3

This comes from 11.50. Looking at 11.50, we have:

et non omnis gens pereat 3

et non uniuersa gens pereat 14

et non tota gens pereat cet (periet 5)

It’s common for a MS to harmonise to a different form of text from that which it contains. So that 3 has omnis in 11.50 and tota here is not surprising. Ways of ranslating παc in 3 would shed more light.


ειcηγαγεν ] ειcηνεγκε 01 ειcηνεγκεν 032

induxit 3; introduxit cet

Other occurrences in the Gospels (, data from Jülicher; 1 and 2 always explicitly cited):


induco Mt 6.13 (1 cet); Lk 5.18 (5); Lk 5.19 (5); Lk 11.4 (par. Mt 6.13); Lk 12.11 (2 cet)

inferre Lk 5.18 (2 cet); Lk 5.19 (2 cet); duco Lk 12.11 (4 13); adduco Lk 12.11 (3 5); perduco Lk 12.11 (6)


induco Lk 2.27 (2 cet); duco Lk 2.27 (6); introduco Lk 14.21 cet; Lk 22.54 (6) (see below); adduco Lk 14.21 (5); perduco Lk 14.21 (2)

Lk 22.54 is more complicated because we have a v.l.

ηγαγον 05 038 family 1; ηγαγον και εισηγαγον cet

ducebant et introduxerunt 6; adduxerunt 3 5; duxerunt 2 cet

So the reading of 3 at Jn 18.16 is more likely to represent εισαγω than εισφερω. The edition will provide the bare evidence. It will need this kind of analysis before the likelihood that there is a relationship between the Greek and Latin variants can be assessed.

The working position we have reached is that Greek variants we provide will have to be collected and provided consistently. So we will provide it where it is attested as a variant in the papyri and majuscules, or a single text attested by later MSS such as Family 1. We will also provide it on the basis of certain types of evidence even where there is unlikely to be a geneaological link between the readings. An example is transposition (e.g. the variants at 18.15 ην γνωcτοc] γνωcτοc ην in the Greek and erat notus notus erat in the Latin). We think it probably unlikely that they are related. But we will consistently supply all examples of transposition in Greek witnesses where it is found in the Latin MSS. It’s the job of the edition here to give the evidence, not to interpret it. We will also include places where there are references to Latin support in the Nestle apparatus.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.