Online Encyclopedia

UNCIALS

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V03, Page 880 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!
UNCIALS.—Codex Vaticanus (Vat. Gr, 1209), Greg. B, v. Soden S 1; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It is written in three columns and has forty-two lines to the column. It originally Codex contained the whole Bible, but in the New Testament Cod emus. Heb. ix. 14, xiii. 25, I and 2 Tim., Tit., Philemon, Apoc., are 'tow missing. It was written by three scribes of whom the writer of the New Testament was identified by Tischendorf as the scribe D of s (cod. Sinaiticus). The text has been corrected by two scribes, gne (the SwpOwr,ts) contemporary with the original writer, the other belonging to the loth or 11th century. The latter probably also re-inked the whole of the MS. and introduced a few changes in the text, though some critics think that this was done by a monk of the 15th century who supplied the text of the lacuna in Heb. and of the Apocalypse from a MS. belonging to Bessarion. The text is the best example of the so-called Neutral Text, except in the Pauline epistles, where it has a strong " Western " element. How this MS. came to be in the Vatican is not known. It first appears in the catalogue of 1481 (Bibl. Vat. MS. Lat. 3952 f. 50), and is not in the catalogue of 1475, as is often erroneously stated on the authority of Vercellone. It was, therefore, probably acquired between the years 1475 and 1481. The problem of its earlier history is so en-tangled with the similar questions raised by s that the two cannot well be discussed separately. [ Phototypic editions have been issued in Rome in 1889–1890 and in 1905.] Codex Sinaiticus (St Petersburg, Imperial library), Greg, s, von Soden S2; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It was found in 1844 by C. Tischendorf (q.v.) in the monastery of Stnaitt-St Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and finally acquired by the tsar in 1869. It is written on thin vellum in four columns cus. of 'forty-eight lines each to a page. It contained originally the whole Bible, and the New Testament is still complete. At the end it also contains the Ep. of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, unfortunately incomplete, and there was probably originally some other document between these two. The text was written, according to Tischendorf, by four scribes, of whom he identified one as also the scribe of cod. Vaticanus. It was corrected many times, especially in the 6th century, by a scribe known as ea and in the 7th by ea. It has, in the main, a Neutral text, less mixed in the Epistles than that of B, but not so pure in the Gospels. The corrections of s° are important, as they are based (according to a note by that scribe, at the end of Either) on an early copy which had been corrected by Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen, friend of Eusebius and founder of a library at Caesarea. [The text of was published in Tischendorf's Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (vol. iv.,1862), and separately in his Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum (1863); in 1909 it was published in collotype by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The relations of s° to Pamphilus are studied by Bousset in " Textkritische Studien zum N.T." (in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xi. 4).] If Tischendorf was right in identifying the scribe of B with that of part of e, it is obvious that these MSS. probably come from the same place. He was probably wrong, but there are some indications of relationship to justify the same view. The two most probable places seem to be Caesarea and Alexandria. The case for Caesarea is that the colophon written by ea at the end of Esther, and also of Ezra, shows that is was then in the library of Caesarea, and that a chapter division in Acts found both in K and B can also be traced to the same library. This is a fairly strong case, but it falls short" of demonstration because it cannot be shown that the MS. corrected by Pamphilus was still at Caesarea when it was used by s, and because it is not certain either that the chapter divisions in Acts were added by the original scribes, or that s and B were at that time in their original home, or that the chapter divisions were necessarily only to be found at Caesarea. The case for Alexandria depends partly on the orthography of B, which resembles Graeco-Coptic papyri, partly on the order of the Pauline epistles. At present, both in x and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in B there is also a continuous numeration of sections throughout the epistles, according to which I to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, but Ephesians, the next epistle, begins with 70 instead of 59, and the omitted section numbers are found in Hebrews. Obviously, the archetype placed Hebrews between Galatians and Ephesians, but the scribe altered the order and put it between 2 Thess. and I Tim., though without changing the section numbers. This older order of the epistles is only found elsewhere in the Sahidic version of the New Testament, and it was probably therefore the old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know from the Festal letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac texts, but not the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order of the epistles which is now given in x B. This is strong evidence for the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or the neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but it scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of epistles which it gives is also that adopted by the council of Laodicea in A.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps in Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and some-times in turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of x B represents that of Hesychius; but this is extremely doubtful (see the section Textual Criticism below). [The question of the provenance of x and B may best be studied in J. Rendel Harris, Stichometry (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 71.89; J. Armitage Robinson, " Euthaliana," Texts and Studies, iii. 3 (Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43 (these more especially for the connexion with Caesarea) ; A. Rahfls, " Alter and Heimat der vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Gottingen (1899), vol. i. pp. 72-79; and O. von Gebhardt in a review of the last named in the Theologische Literaturzeitung (1899), col. 556.] Codex Bezae (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden S 5 ; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and prob-Besae. ably considerably earlier. The text is written in one column to a page, the Greek on the left hand page and the Latin on the right. It was given to the university of Cambridge in 1581, but its early history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came from Lyons and had been always preserved in the monastery of St Irenaeus there. There is no reason to question Beza's bona fides, or that the MS. was obtained by him after the sack of Lyons in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is room for doubt as to the accuracy of his belief that it had been for a long time in the same monastery. His information on this point would necessarily be derived from Protestant sources, which would not be of the highest value, and there are two pieces of evidence which show that just previously the MS. was in Italy. In the first place it is certainly identical with the MS. called n which is quoted in the margin of the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this MS. according to Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in Italy. In the second place it was probably used at the council of Trent in 1546 by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in the last edition of the Annotationes Beza quotes his MS. as Claromontanus, and not as Lugdunensis. These points suggest that the MS. had only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The still earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H. Quentin has produced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that the MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris at one time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, but the latter's more recent researches go to show that the corrections and annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th centuries point to a district which was at first predominantly Greek and afterwards became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but not Lyons. The text of this MS. is important as the oldest and best witness in a Greek MS. to the so-called " Western " text. (See the section Textual Criticism below.) [The following books and articles are important for the history, as apart from the text of the MS. Codex Bezae . phototypice repraesentatus (Cambridge, 1899) ; Scrivener, Codex Bezae (Can,-bridge, 1864) ; J. Rendel Harris, " A Study of Cod. Bezae," Texts and Studies, i. i (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, The Annotators of Cod. Bezae (London, 1901) ; F. E. Brightman and K. Lake, " The Italian Origin of Codex Bezae," in Journal of Theol. Studies, April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, " The Date of Codex Bezae," in the Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D. H. Quentin, " Le Codex Bezae a Lyon, &c.," Revue Benedictine, xxxiii. I, 1906.] Codex Alexandrinus (G. M. reg. ID v.-viii.), Greg. A, von Soden 84; an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar, Alexaa- patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It Maus. appears probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with him from Alexandria, of which he had formerly been patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states that it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is probably merely his inter- pretation of an Arabic note of the 14th century which states that the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr, an obviously absurd legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius (probably Athanasius of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period dates the presenta- tion in 1098. So far back as it can be traced it is, therefore, ar Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in the same direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old and New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former and I and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutilation in a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by some scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension, but this view seems latterly to have lost favour with students of the Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hort's " Syrian " type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked " Alexandrian " element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile in 1879-1880.] Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von Soden 5 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the pro- Ephraeml perty of Catherine de' Medici, and was probably brought Syri. from the east to Italy in the 16th century. Hort (Intro- duction, p. 268) has shown from a consideration of displacements in the text of the Apocalypse that it was copied from a very small MS., but this, of course, only holds good of the Apocalypse. It is usually said that this MS., like A, came originally from Egypt, but this is merely a palaeographical guess, for which there is no real evidence. Originally, it contained the whole Bible, but only sixty-four leaves of the Old Testament remain, and 145 (giving about `two-thirds of the whole) of the New Testament. The character of the text is mixed with a strong " Alexandrian " element. [Published in facsimile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in his Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 94.] Codex Claromontanus (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. DP", von Soden a 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This MS. also belonged to Beza, who " acquired " it from the Claromoamonastery of Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death taaus. it passed through various private hands and was finally bought for the French royal library before 1656. It contains the whole of the Pauline epistles with a few lacunae, and has a famous stichometric list of books prefixed in another hand to Hebrews. It is probably the best extant witness to the type of Greek text which was in use in Italy at an early time. It is closely connected with cod. Sangermanensis (a direct copy) at St Petersburg, Greg. Ei°i, von Soden a 1027; cod. Augiensis (Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. I), Greg. FP", von Soden a 1029; and cod. Boernerianus (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. Gm" von Soden a 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's Codex Claromontanus (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in Westcott and Hort's Introduction, §§ 335-337.] There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The next most valuable are probably cod. Regius of the 8th century at Paris, Greg. L, von Soden a 56, containing the Gospels; cod. Laudianus of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden a Tool,, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; cod. Coislinianus of the 6th century in Paris, Turin, iev, Moscow and Mt. Athos, Greg. HP°i, von Soden a 1022, containing fragments of the Pauline epistles; and cod. Augiensis of the 9th century in Trinity College, Cambridge, Greg. FP°i von Soden a 1029, a Graeco-Latin MS. closely related to cod. Claromontanus. [Further details as to these MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's N.T. ed. maj. viii.]
End of Article: UNCIALS
[back]
UNAO
[next]
UNCLE

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.