Self-Portrait of a Bible: The Ezra Image of Codex Amiatinus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article deals with an exciting research question, related to the identification of the canon,as expressed in the prefatory material of the Codex Amiatinus. This is responded to by a detailed
- and convincing- analysis of the relevant material. However, the study could have benefited
from some more contextualization and perspectivization. The article does not present clearly
what the current state of research is and what it contributes to the discussion. The secondary
bibliography could be somewhat more comprehensive.
It introduces interestingly with a presentation of the Bible as not only a varied collection of texts,
but also a physical and material object (lines 14-16). This could be elaborated on, as such a
focus relates to a current trend in research, with increased attention paid to the materiality of
manuscripts, see most recently Lied, Liv Ingeborg. Invisible Manuscripts: Textual Scholarship
and the Survival of 2 Baruch. 2021. and an interesting review panel in this regard:
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2022/3/7/lieds-invisible-manuscripts-a-review-forum .
Also the issue of canon- identification and its significance/consequences- could have been
lifted to a more principal leve.
It would be helpful for the reader if the design of the article was introduced at the end of
§ 1 (line 54), offering some hints to the differences between the two incompatible versions of the scriptures which relates to the visual representations of Ezra in Codex Amiatinus; from line 233 onwards, the author deals with the very significant differences of the two Bibles. Some more explication of the two profiles of the canon, with their emphasis on Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible respectively, would have made the research contribution even more interesting, relating for instance to the role of the Jews in the translation, of both in terms of Septuagint as well as the view of the Jews alluded to in line 332 and what is characterized as Jerome’s polemics in line 336.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments, and I'm pleased that you found my interpretation of the Ezra portrait convincing. You rightly suggest that more could be said about the research context of the article and that an early clarification of its fundamental purpose would be desirable. I've addressed both points in the 300+ word expansion at the end of the first section, where there's an extended penultimate paragraph and a new final paragraph. The documentation has been improved by adding seven new items, and I've also inserted a new footnote 1 on the term "pandect". You also comment that the two profiles of canon merit further discussion. I agree in principle (and intend to address this issue in a monograph currently under preparation), but I feel that extending the discussion in the present context would risk losing my specific focus on Codex Amiatinus. Thank you again for your comments!
Reviewer 2 Report
Very interesting article. The author might clarify two points: 4 Ezra often appears in Bibles as 2 Esdras, which could be noted at line 69 and in note 2.
Secondly, I had the impression reading through the article that the text of Codex Amiatinus was Jerome's (i.e., the Vulgate). Yet line 35 seems to say that is the pre-Jerome version (i.e., Old Latin). This should be clarified.
Author Response
Thank you for these comments. I've expanded what is now footnote 3 to comment briefly on the 4 Ezra/2 Esdras relationship. The reference to the Septuagint-based Old Latin is to a pandect imported from Italy, not to Codex Amiatinus itself which does indeed use the Jerome version. I consider this to be clear in my text as it stands.
