There seems to be so much confusion about the various markings in the margins of old manuscripts, that I thought I should start a special thread on this subject.
There are three basic ways the so-called 'critical' markings in the margins of ancient manuscripts are used.
(1) As they were originally used and invented, in the context of ancient Greek plays and other literary works.
(2) As they were used in manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament.
(3) As they were used in the margins of New Testament books and letters, including the Old Uncials (4th and 5th century manuscripts of the Great Bibles).
These are in no way the same. Yet even among textual critics today there seems to be alot of confusion and error regarding both the meaning and value of these markings both for their original users, and for textual criticism today.
Let's look first at how some of these marks were used in the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament manuscripts:
This manuscript is an excellent example of how these diacritical markings were typically used in UNCIAL manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), for the Old Testament (LXX) portion.
Hexapla
The markings in question are collectively called the markings of the 'Hexapla', a special six-column master-manuscript made by Origen through comparing the Hebrew and the various independant Greek translations available in the 2nd and 3rd centuries
This example was taken from the appendix of "The Text of the Old Testament" by Wurthwein (Eng.xlation).
Although his description of this page is erroneous, his basic explanation is sound:
To put this in perspective, here is another description of Origen and his purposes:
What's it all About, Nazaroo?
The important thing to realise here is that these markings have a very specialized purpose when used in BIBLICAL manuscripts, far more developed and purposed than their original invention and use in Alexandria (Greek speaking Egypt in circa 400 B.C.).
In particular, in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), the system used was that of Origen, especially for the purpose of noting the differences (additions or omissions) between the Greek and Hebrew texts, and noting other Greek translations.
Lets look at our example manuscript again:
Here the 'Obelus' (actually an umlaut, a sideways colon) marks a part of the Greek which is not found in the 2nd century A.D. (Massoretic) Hebrew text.
The 'Asterisk' is used by Origen (and copied here) to indicate a favoured or 'restored' passage either translated freshly into Greek from Hebrew or borrowed from another independant translation, like Theodotus and supported by the Hebrew.
In each case, the END of the passage is marked by a 'metobelus', in this manuscript a simple 'colon'..
When the passage extends beyond a single line, each new line that continues the reading is marked also at the beginning (outside the margin) with the same sign (either Asterisk or Obelus).
The most important thing about this particular example here, is that we can observe that these marks are indeed by the original scribe, since in many cases, the beginning and ending marks are actually IN THE MAIN TEXT.
Yet the text has not been erased and re-written to make room. Instead, obviously the original scribe was aware of the Hexapla markings and incorporated them into his text as he wrote.
(Although occasionally the scribe misses inserting a mark, as in the very last example on the page. Note even here he does not erase even a small group of letters, but inserts the mark above the line and continues, probably doing this also in the process of writing the main text.)
This key observation is critically important, because when we come to examine NEW TESTAMENT portions of uncial manuscripts, like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, this is NOT the case!
There are three basic ways the so-called 'critical' markings in the margins of ancient manuscripts are used.
(1) As they were originally used and invented, in the context of ancient Greek plays and other literary works.
(2) As they were used in manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament.
(3) As they were used in the margins of New Testament books and letters, including the Old Uncials (4th and 5th century manuscripts of the Great Bibles).
These are in no way the same. Yet even among textual critics today there seems to be alot of confusion and error regarding both the meaning and value of these markings both for their original users, and for textual criticism today.
Let's look first at how some of these marks were used in the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament manuscripts:
This manuscript is an excellent example of how these diacritical markings were typically used in UNCIAL manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), for the Old Testament (LXX) portion.
Hexapla
The markings in question are collectively called the markings of the 'Hexapla', a special six-column master-manuscript made by Origen through comparing the Hebrew and the various independant Greek translations available in the 2nd and 3rd centuries
This example was taken from the appendix of "The Text of the Old Testament" by Wurthwein (Eng.xlation).
Although his description of this page is erroneous, his basic explanation is sound:
"On the page shown an obelos[sic] marks the words: This indicates that Origen found these words in the LXX, but that they are NOT in the Hebrew text.
Several passage in the illustration are marked with an asterisk; this indicates that Origen did not find them in the LXX, and supplied them from other Greek versions (typically Theodotus). When such a passage extends over several lines, the Aristarchan sign is repeated before each line; cf. for example v.15 which is lacking in LXX and is given here with an asterisk (lower left to upper right column). " (p 190)
Several passage in the illustration are marked with an asterisk; this indicates that Origen did not find them in the LXX, and supplied them from other Greek versions (typically Theodotus). When such a passage extends over several lines, the Aristarchan sign is repeated before each line; cf. for example v.15 which is lacking in LXX and is given here with an asterisk (lower left to upper right column). " (p 190)
To put this in perspective, here is another description of Origen and his purposes:
What's it all About, Nazaroo?
The important thing to realise here is that these markings have a very specialized purpose when used in BIBLICAL manuscripts, far more developed and purposed than their original invention and use in Alexandria (Greek speaking Egypt in circa 400 B.C.).
In particular, in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) manuscripts of the 4th and 5th centuries (A.D.), the system used was that of Origen, especially for the purpose of noting the differences (additions or omissions) between the Greek and Hebrew texts, and noting other Greek translations.
Lets look at our example manuscript again:
Here the 'Obelus' (actually an umlaut, a sideways colon) marks a part of the Greek which is not found in the 2nd century A.D. (Massoretic) Hebrew text.
The 'Asterisk' is used by Origen (and copied here) to indicate a favoured or 'restored' passage either translated freshly into Greek from Hebrew or borrowed from another independant translation, like Theodotus and supported by the Hebrew.
In each case, the END of the passage is marked by a 'metobelus', in this manuscript a simple 'colon'..
When the passage extends beyond a single line, each new line that continues the reading is marked also at the beginning (outside the margin) with the same sign (either Asterisk or Obelus).
The most important thing about this particular example here, is that we can observe that these marks are indeed by the original scribe, since in many cases, the beginning and ending marks are actually IN THE MAIN TEXT.
Yet the text has not been erased and re-written to make room. Instead, obviously the original scribe was aware of the Hexapla markings and incorporated them into his text as he wrote.
(Although occasionally the scribe misses inserting a mark, as in the very last example on the page. Note even here he does not erase even a small group of letters, but inserts the mark above the line and continues, probably doing this also in the process of writing the main text.)
This key observation is critically important, because when we come to examine NEW TESTAMENT portions of uncial manuscripts, like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, this is NOT the case!