Here is a highlighted reproduction of
Codex Colberto-Sarravianus, showing the use of an
asterisk to indicate passages not found in the Hebrew (Massoretic) text, but appearing in the
LXX (and
vise versa: the asterisk is used for one case, the double-horizontal dot for the other). The symbol is repeated at the beginning of each line to indicate the extent of the section. This usage may have been coined by
Origen himself in creating the
Hexapla (a six-column comparative Hebrew/Greek OT). In any case, it is very early.
 |
| Click on this to view bigger |
|
For contrast, we can see the same symbol (an asterisk) used in the NT pretty consistently to indicate the place where text should be re-inserted, because it was accidentally dropped by the copyist (
homoeoteleuton). Below is the first column of John from
Codex Vaticanus:
 |
| click to view and then backbutton |
The first omission seems to have been caught by one corrector (later?), while the second may be by another. The first instance shows a more formal and organized correction, with the asterisk used to indicate where the insertion should go.
 |
| click to view |
The second case does not require this, since the omission is at the end of the line, but it may be visible there. Not all correctors used the asterisk for this, but it seems a very common and useful convention.
mr.scrivener
mr. scrivener:
ReplyDeletecan you determine any difference in the use of the asterisk(s)/obelisks between the O.T. and the N.T. parts of Codex Vaticanus?
If these are actually semi-'first hand' (contemporary with the scribe(s) if not the same) and pre-production corrections, before the manuscript left the scriptorium, then how do they line up with the horizontal 'double-dots' (umlauts) also peppered throughout the MS?
Does this suggest 3 correctors, (no asterisk/asterisk/umlaut)? and if so, can we put them in a relative temporal order?
Seems there should be a lot more on this to get out an look at.
peace
Nazaroo