General Remarks

One observation in light of this overview is that these orthographical peculiarities do not occur in isolation. They are part of a system, and as such they are interconnected, as is evident from some of the examples that could be in one category or another. All together, they paint a picture of the scribal profile, guiding the reader of the present edition in the reading of the text.

One of the main takeways from this study is the realization that the scribe in Rahlfs 1098 operated with a different spelling standard or a different orthographical scheme. What would be considered nowadays as standard Ancient Greek spelling does not line up one hundred percent with the scribe’s own ideas about Ancient Greek spelling.

Surely, there are obvious mistakes, omissions, and lapses which are inexcusable regardless of the standard one follows. But when the same sort of orthographical features reoccur over and over, one must reconsider that this spelling was not written by mistake but rather intentionally. In other words, in the mind of the scribe his spelling was the correct one.

This point is important to highlight because it forces the scholar to read with a certain degree of reserve before assigning the label mistake to a word or phrase in the text.

Moreover, perhaps instead of looking only for orthographical misspellings, one should

keep in mind a broader category of orthographical characteristics, which would include

unique features present in the text as well as mistakes.

CHAPTER 4 WHY A NEW EDITION?

Giovanni Mercati’s editio princeps of Rahlfs 1098 was published in 1958. His work represented a milestone in the study of the Hexapla by making the fragments available to scholars outside the confines of the Ambrosian Library. Of course, Mercati’s spirit of comraderary and sharing was never in question. Since the rediscovery of O 39 sup. in 1896, Mercati showed a willingnes to assist scholars interested in the manuscript.

Paul Kahle, for example, reached out to Mercati in 1939 asking to gain access to the second column before the publication of an “extensive work on Hebrew grammar.”

¹

In response to which Mercati sent Kahle, via Einar Brønno, “photographs of the apograph,”

²

the same photographs which he had first shared with Franz Wutz.

³

Another token of his generosity is evident in the fact that not many years later, in 1906, Martini and Bassi had included a description O 39 sup. in the Catologus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae,

⁴

and in 1914 Alfred Rahlfs included the manuscript in his Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments.

⁵

Nevertheless, there are various reasons for needing a new transcription of the text of Rahlfs 1098. I do not intend, however, to take away from the merit that Mercati

1“Un lungo studio di grammatica ebraica . . . .” Giovanni Mercati,Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae, Pars i, Codex rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 sup, Phototypice Expressus et Transcriptus, vol. 8, Codices Ex Ecclesiasticis Italiae Bybliothecis Delecti Phototypice Expressi Iussu Pii Xii Pont. Max., Consilio Et Studio Procuratorum Bybliothecae Vaticanae (Vatican City: Bybliotheca Vaticana, 1958), xii.

2“le fotografie dell’apografo.”

3Mercati,Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae, Pars i, xii.

4Emidio Martini and Domenico Bassi, eds.,Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 2 vols. (Milan: U. Hoepli, 1906).

5Alfred Rahlfs,Verzeichnis der Griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, für das Septuaginta­Unternehmen Aufgestell(Göttingen: Weidmannsche Bunchhandlung, 1914).

and his work deserve. His work did help other scholars make advances in the study of the LXX/Hexapla and related fields. Still, with the advances in technology as well as the changes and development in the field of palaeography, the time is propitious for revisiting the text and producing a second edition. More specifically, then, there are methodological, technological, and also circumstantial reasons that impeded Mercati from producing an acurate transcription by today’s standards. I will briefly examine each of these.

Methodological Issues

The biggest area of concern, in my opinion, with Mercati’s transcription is his methodology or approach to the text. Put succintly, Mercati did not have the same

approach to the task of transcription as scholars do nowadays. For example, the errors and orthopgraphical features mentioned in the chapter 4 were not represented fully in

Mercati’s edition. Whenever Mercati encountered an error or a feature that deviates from the standard spelling, he would write the supposed correct reading in the text. There are many instances of this approach to the text. For example, in line 1 of fol. 49, the word

“ψῆφου” is a scribal error. It should be “ψήφου,” but the MS displays a circumflex accent.

Mercati simply writes the corrected form.

Thus, there are many places where Mercati’s transcription and mine will differ.

I have marked most of them in the endnotes with the phrase Contra Mercati. Here I would mention a few:

1. Fol. 18, line 3, for “π(α)τρ̣(ό)ς” Mercati writes π(ατ)ρ̣(ό)ς indicating omission of the τ.

2. Lines 10–11 of fol. 50, for πα/ρασκευασμένος Mercati writes πα/ρεσκευασμένος.

3. Fol. 11, line 3, for “αὐτῶ” Mercati writes αὐτῶι.

4. Fol. 18, line 9, for “ εὐ ρύχωρος,” Mercati wrote “ εὐ φύχωρος,” a typographical error.

5. Fol. 9, line 5, “( δὲ ) is not shown to be abbreviated in Mercati’s edition.

Part of the problem is that in order to decipher the text Mercati depended on

other textual witnesses. When it came to deciphering the catenae, he would rely upon the

text of the Patrologia Graecae. Mercati makes mention of the parallels in Rahlfs 1098

with the text of the Patrologia Graecae in the critical apparatus. When it came to deciphering the text of the LXX he would rely on Rahfls’ text. But it when it came to deciphering the Hexapla, it would show that he was without textual support at times, since in few instances he leaves the reading unresolved. This reliance on other textual witnesses, in my opinion, produced a certain interference between Mercati and Rahlfs 1098. Though he does not explicitly state it, it appears that in his mind, Mercati was trying to restore a clean copy of the Vorlage of Rahlfs 1098, not really seeing the writing before him. The final product is, then, an eclectic text rather than just the actual text of Rahlfs 1098.

His work also contains typographical errors. But to his credit these do not

abound. It is a testament of the care with which he handled the elaboration of his edition.