Continuing through the "Big Ones".
- Paper: 4.5" by 7" Moleskin journal
- Pen: Pilot G2 0.7
- Transcription: Greek New Testament (Codex Vaticanus) (GNT-VAT) Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, edited by Aenoth. Frid. Constant. Tischendorf. Lipsiae: Giesecke et Devrient, 1857. Text digitized and morphologically tagged by Rex A. Koivisto (Multnomah University, Portland, Oregon USA) Copyright © 2009 OakTree Software, Inc. All rights reserved. Version 3.0
- Manuscript: Vat.gr.1209 (page 1365)
I'm in love with the image quality from the Vatican Digital Library. I'm sitting in Starbucks looking at a 1,500 year old manuscript housed at the Vatican, so I'm not gonna be a choosy beggar...but if I were a choosy beggar, I'd say I wish they hadn't watermarked it. I understand the reasoning why, but some of these features are difficult to explain even without a watermark, let alone without having to explain the watermark as well.
It's extremely annoying to screw up the first word. I suppose that's the fruit of overconfidence. My eye just read through into ⲚⲈⲒⲔⲞⲆⲎⲘⲞⲤ.
It's fantastic that the manuscript includes breathing marks. That makes spotting word separation much easier.
Not sure what happened with the Ⲁ in ⲀⲚⲐⲢⲰⲠⲞⲤ.
Probably the most subtle column break in copying history. I'm still not sure what my notation system is at all.
I also divided ⲠⲢⲞⲪⲎⲦⲎⲤ (A nice departure from how I usually try to cram it in), but it's interesting that my instinct was to follow the modern convention of including the dash.
I almost committed a homeoarchy between the ⲞⲨ in ⲞⲨⲔ (Col. 3, Li0ne 3) and the ⲞⲨ in ⲞⲨⲚ (Line 4):
It's very cool to spot that kind of error in the wild.
Obviously, the notable thing here is how the manuscript rolls from 7:52 to 8:12.
I don't know what the ⲔⲌ is doing. It looks like paragraph numbering(?), but I need to find a good source.
In my copy, it looks like I scratched out an ⲈⲒ, which means either some dittography in ⲈⲜⲈⲒ or else haplographic error by skipping down to the ⲈⲒ in ⲈⲒⲠⲞⲚ.
Another discrepancy between the manuscript and the published transcription. It looks like the movable Ⲛ at end of ⲈⲤⲦⲒⲚ is missing in the manuscript.
Here's the manuscript:
And here's the published transcription next to the NA28:
On a whim, I bought a copy of the published transcription, I'll have to check that when I get home.
UPDATE: The Vaticanus Bible also does not include the movable Ⲛ.
I'm again blown away by how remarkably clean and legible the manuscript is. I think a lot of my errors were due to how accessible the source script is. Of course, that resulted in less care in my own copying.
Having only done a few of these (so far, only D and א), it is interesting to notice how "careless" I'm becoming, especially as I've gotten so familiar with both the script and the text. That's interesting to reflect on when I think about the poor souls who were doing this every day vocationally.