Codex Zacynthius: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:57, 16 October 2021

Revision as of 18:42, 30 December 2021

Line 48:

The codex uses a peculiar system of chapter divisions, which it shares with [[Codex Vaticanus]] and [[Minuscule 579]]. A more common system divides chapters according to their titles.<ref name = Gregory/> The capital letters at the beginnings of sections stand out in the margin as in the Codices [[Codex Alexandrinus|Alexandrinus]] and [[Codex Ephraemi|Ephraemi]].<ref name = Gregory/>

The text is surrounded by a marginal commentary; it is the only codex that has both text and commentary in uncial script. The commentary is a [[Catena (Biblical commentary)|catena]] of quotations of nine church fathers: [[Origen]], [[Eusebius]], [[Titus of Bostra]], Basil, [[Isidore of Pelusium]], [[Cyril of Alexandria]], Sever from Antioch, Victor from Antioch, and [[John Chrysostom|Chrysostom]].<ref>William Hatch, [https://archive.org/stream/MN41361ucmf_0#page/n423/mode/2up ''A redating of two important uncial manuscripts of the Gospels - Codex Zacynthius and Codex Cyprius''], in: ''Quantulacumque'' studies presented to Kirsopp Lake ([c1937]), p. 333.</ref> The commentary surrounds the single-column text of Luke on three sides.<ref>J. H. Greenlee, ''The Catena of Codex Zacynthius'', Biblica 40 (1959), pp. 992-1001.</ref> [[Patristic]] text is written in small uncial letters. Most of the quotations are those of Ciril of Alexandria (93 ''scholia''); next comes Titus of Bostra (45 ''scholia'').<ref>J. Reuss, ''Bemerkungen zu den Lukas-Homilien des Titus von Bostra'', Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 538-541.</ref><ref>Lorenzo DiTommaso, Lucian Turcescu, [https://books.google.com/books?id=8KYfQmHghj4C&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false ''The reception and interpretation of the Bible in late antiquity: proceedings of the Montréal colloquium in honour of Charles Kannengiesser''], Brill 2008, p. 261.</ref> The commentary was written in a different kind of uncial script than the biblical text.<ref>[[William Hatch (theologian)|W. H. P. Hatch]], [https://archive.org/stream/MN41361ucmf_0#page/n425/mode/2up ''A Redating of Two Important Uncial Manuscripts of the Gospels - Codex Zacynthius and Codex Cyprius''], in Lake F/S, pp.&nbsp;335.</ref>

=== Contents ===

Line 109:

Tregelles dated the manuscript to the 8th century. Tregelles was aware that the handwriting is typical for the 6th century, but the handwriting of the commentary is much older. The letters ΕΘΟΣ are round, high, and narrow, and could not have been written before the 8th century. [[Caspar René Gregory|C. R. Gregory]] supported Tregelles's point of view. According to [[Nicholas Pocock (historian)|Nicholas Pocock]], the manuscript could not have been written before the 6th century nor after the 8th century.<ref name = Pocock>[[Nicholas Pocock (historian)|N. Pocock]], [https://archive.org/stream/academyliteratur19londuoft#page/136/mode/2up ''The Codex Zacynthius''], [[The Academy (periodical)|The Academy]] (London, 19 February 1881), pp. 136c-137c.</ref>

[[William Hatch (theologian)|William Hatch]] in 1937, on the basis of palaeographical data, suggested that the codex should be dated to the 6th century. It does not use breathings and accents and the text of the commentary is written in uncial script.<ref>William Hatch, [https://archive.org/stream/MN41361ucmf_0#page/n425/mode/2up ''A redating of two important uncial manuscripts of the Gospels – Codex Zacynthius and Codex Cyprius''], in: ''Quantulacumque'' studies presented to Kirsopp Lake ([c1937]), ss. 335-337.</ref> Aland supported Hatch's point of view.<ref group = "n">UBS3 from 1983 dated the manuscript to the 8th century (UBS3, p. XVI.), but in the second edition of ''Der Text des Neues Testaments'' (1989) Aland dated it to the 6th century. NA26 from 1991 dated it to the 6th century (NA26, p. 693.).</ref> This date is accepted by the majority of scholars.<ref name = Aland/><ref name = Waltz/>

[[David C. Parker]] in 2004 argued that manuscript was written later than the 6th century, because it has a small number of square letters, and the handwriting is not typical for the 6th century. Some letters were compressed (Μ, Δ, Ε), the bar over the letter Τ is short and the letter Υ is written in several ways. According to Parker the manuscript should be dated to the 7th century.<ref>{{Cite book | last = Parker | first = David C. | title = Manuscripts, texts, theology: collected papers 1977-2007 | url = http://paperc.de/2617-manuscripts-texts-theology-9783110211948#!/pages/115 | publisher = Walter de Gruyter | ___location = Berlin | year = 2009 | page = 115 | isbn = 978-3-11-021193-1 | access-date = 2011-10-08 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101219025836/http://paperc.de/2617-manuscripts-texts-theology-9783110211948#!/pages/115 | archive-date = 2010-12-19 | url-status = dead }}</ref>

Line 130:

}}</ref>

Nicholas Pocock found errors in Tregelles' edition,<ref name = Pocock/> but [[William Hatch (theologian)|William Hatch]] thought it satisfactory. J. Harold Greenlee corrected Tregelles' errors and edited the list of corrections in 1957,<ref>J. H. Greenlee, [https://www.jstor.org/pss/3261574 ''A Corrected Collation of Codex Zacynthius (Cod. Ξ)''], JBL LXXVI (1957), pp. 237-241.</ref> which was examined by [[William Hatch (theologian)|William Hatch]]. In 1959 Greenlee published a commentary.<ref>J. H. Greenlee, ''The Catena of Codex Zacynthius'', Biblica 40 (1959), pp.&nbsp;992–1001.</ref> The codex probably needs another examination with modern technology.<ref name = Waltz/>

[[File:Samuel P Tregelles.jpg|thumb|Samuel Prideaux Tregelles]]

Line 170:

* {{Cite journal | author = J. H. Greenlee | url = http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1958_greenlee.pdf | title = Some examples of scholarly "agreement in error" | journal = JBL | volume = 77 | date = Dec 1958 | issue = 4 | pages = 363–364}}

* {{Cite journal | author = J. H. Greenlee | title = The Catena of Codex Zacynthius | journal = Biblica | volume = 40 | year =1959 | pages = 992–1001}}

* [[William Hatch (theologian)|W. H. P. Hatch]], [https://archive.org/stream/MN41361ucmf_0#page/n423/mode/2up ''A Redating of Two Important Uncial Manuscripts of the Gospels – Codex Zacynthius and Codex Cyprius''], in Lake F/S, pp.&nbsp;333–338.

* [[David C. Parker|D. C. Parker]] & J. Neville Birdsall, ''The date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A new proposal'', [[Journal of Theological Studies|JTS]] (2004) 55 (1): 117-131.