Unpublished Sacred Monuments

Thomas Gale Thomas Gale (1635–1702) was an English classical scholar and antiquarian. made notes in the margin of a certain copy of the Aldine edition, which was later among the books of Benjamin Kennicott. Later, James Ussher, Primate of Ireland, collated the manuscript with the Frankfurt edition; the Bodleian Library preserves this collation among Ussher’s writings.*) Likewise, Magnus Crusius collated it, and applied his observations to two Göttingen dissertations held in the years 1744 and 1745; indeed, the collation written in Crusius's own hand came into the possession of Johann Jakob Breitinger of Zurich. All of these collations were surpassed by the one prepared through the study of John Ernest Grabe A Prussian theologian and biblical scholar who settled in England; he is famous for his edition of the Codex Alexandrinus. around the year 1703. Grabe had indeed promised in the prolegomena of his edition of the Codex Alexandrinus (Chapter III, § 6) in the year 1707:

“that very ancient book of Genesis, older even than the parchment of the Alexandrian manuscript itself, soon to be published in its entirety on its own, or at least the collations of it with the Roman edition, together with its history, for the benefit of the public.” original: „pervetustum illum ipsisque Alexandrinis membranis antiquiorem librum Geneseos propediem integrum seorsim vel saltem illius cum Romana editione collationes praefixa eiusdem historia publicae luci se donaturum.“

But it did not happen that this most celebrated man could publish either the collations or the manuscript itself, as he was overtaken by an untimely death five years later (in the year 1712). In order to fulfill his promise as far as possible, Henry Owen in 1778 published that collation of the manuscript—which has already been mentioned above—from Grabe’s papers preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. However, it seemed to us that we should not be satisfied with merely publishing the fragments of the manuscript rescued from the flames, carefully described word for word or rather letter by letter; we also thought that Owen's book, long since very rare, should be used for our edition so that we might extract from it whatever would serve to complete the readings of the manuscript as it once was. Before we do this, we must speak briefly about the condition of the manuscript, its handwriting and age, and likewise about the paintings.

The parchment is generally thin, but it does not equal the delicacy of the Codex Claromontanus A 6th-century Greek-Latin manuscript of the Pauline Epistles. or some similar ones. That the form of the manuscript was a quarto original: quaternariam. Referring to the size of the book or its gathering structure., as we learn from Grabe’s testimony, can still be understood from the remains of several leaves.

The number of lines written on individual pages, where no painting intervenes, fluctuates between 26 (cf. pages 43, 58, 61), 27 (cf. pages 49, 51, 52), and 28 (cf. pages 41, 44, 45, 47, 72). Individual lines, written according to lines drawn straight across the page with a stylus, contain about 27 or, rarely, 30 letters. The uncial letters—whether smaller, as is usually the case, or a little thicker and larger (specimens of both are shown in our plate)—do not deviate from the ancient, pure, round, and square forms. However, initial letters, the kind of which are foreign to our most ancient manuscripts—such as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus The name Tischendorf gave to the portion of Codex Sinaiticus he discovered in 1844., the Vatican Bible (Codex Vaticanus), and the Sarravian Pentateuch—have already come into use in the Cotton manuscript. The letters υ (upsilon) and ι (iota), where they are distinguished from the other letters, are usually marked with double dots Similar to a modern diaeresis or umlaut.. (An example of a transverse line is provided in our facsimile.) Likewise, it shares with most similar manuscripts the use of the apostrophe and shorthand abbreviations. In the punctuation of the text, a system of three points is observed; for a point is placed either at the top, the middle, or the bottom of the preceding letter This refers to the "distinctiones" system of Greek punctuation where the height of the dot indicated the length of the pause..

In terms of grammar, the Cotton manuscript does not differ much from the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi, and similar ones.

With Grabe, Owen (in the place cited, pages XVI and following) says it is "so defective and imperfect" original: „adeo mancam et imperfectam“ "that a repeated comparison of it from head to heel Meaning from beginning to end. with the printed copy was clearly necessary."

*) Robert Holmes used that one; for he certainly testifies in the place cited: "I extract the variants from Grabe's collation, yet I occasionally call upon the other one by Ussher for assistance." original: „Ex Grabii collatione Variantes excerpo, alteram tamen Usserii in subsidium subinde devoco.“