----- Original Message -----

From: K.Martin Heide

To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:29 PM

Subject: [textualcriticism] High Rez Images of Sinaiticus

Thank you very much, but the file seems to have an error.
I downloaded it two times, with 1GB memory and a fast internet connection, but both times I was prompted by a file-open error.

Martin

Mark Thunderson wrote:

Dear List:

I have created a digitally enhanced PDF file in color
of Sinaiticus (Gospel of Mark). If you are
interested, you can download it free at:

http://www.movedigital.com/go/Sinaiticus

The file is 233 meg (you need a good computer with
memory). However, I built the file for my own
purposes, some of which included being able to view
the most minute details on the pages. Therefore, you
can zoom with clarity to about 1800% - 2000% in Adobe
Reader (maybe even more!).

Mark Thunderson.

__________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

$420k for $1,399/mo.
Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

It must be something on your end, because I had no problems downloading it and
opening
it...

On 19 Nov 2006 at 17:29, K.Martin Heide wrote:

> Thank you very much, but the file seems to have an error.
> I downloaded it two times, with 1GB memory and a fast internet connection, but
both times I was
> prompted by a file-open error.
>
> Martin
>
> Mark Thunderson wrote:
>     Dear List:
>
>     I have created a digitally enhanced PDF file in color
>     of Sinaiticus (Gospel of Mark). If you are
>     interested, you can download it free at:
>
>     http://www.movedigital.com/go/ Sinaiticus
>
>     The file is 233 meg (you need a good computer with
>     memory). However, I built the file for my own
>     purposes, some of which included being able to view
>     the most minute details on the pages. Therefore, you
>     can zoom with clarity to about 1800% - 2000% in Adobe
>     Reader (maybe even more!).
>
>     Mark Thunderson.
>
>     ________________________________________________ __________
>     Sponsored Link
>
>     $420k for $1,399/mo.
>     Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
>     Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
>
>


Dave Washburn
Some people's bodies retain water.  Mine retains ice cream.

Thank you very much, but the file seems to have an error.
I downloaded it two times, with 1GB memory and a fast internet connection, but both times I was prompted by a file-open error.

Martin

Mark Thunderson wrote:

Dear List:

I have created a digitally enhanced PDF file in color
of Sinaiticus (Gospel of Mark). If you are
interested, you can download it free at:

http://www.movedigital.com/go/Sinaiticus

The file is 233 meg (you need a good computer with
memory). However, I built the file for my own
purposes, some of which included being able to view
the most minute details on the pages. Therefore, you
can zoom with clarity to about 1800% - 2000% in Adobe
Reader (maybe even more!).

Mark Thunderson.

Dear List:

The Hi Rez PDF file of the Gospel of Mark is no longer
available for downloading from the  Move Digital
website.  Due to the high number of downloads of the
file, I ran out of bandwidth today.

Cheers,

Mark Thunderson.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Sponsored Link

Compare mortgage rates for today.
Get up to 5 free quotes. www2.nextag.com

Has anyone else noticed that Swanson's volume on the Gospel of Mark,
showing variants against Codex Vaticanus, published by William Cary
press, skips from 9:4 on p. 159 to 10:16 on p. 160, but does show the
missing parts of Mark 9 earlier?

David Robert Palmer wrote:

While I am on this topic, what is the meaning of the
mathematical division sign that marks where these
words TON NAZARHNON are found in other manuscripts
except Codex Bezae, in 16:6?  Some are calling it
alemniscus.

What I am asking is, the scribe or editor or corrector
who inserted this sign, what judgment or conclusion is
he making about this textualvariant, if any?  For
example, is he saying it is an accidental ommission,
or it is a more neutral mark, indicating the presence
of a variant?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

David,

I too am intrigued by the placement of TON NAZAPHNON
in the margins at 16:6.  The variant is significant
for a number of reasons, and, no doubt, is linked to
the two other instances in the Gospel of Mark where
there are similar variants (Mk. 1:24 and 10:48).  I
suppose one reason why it is placed in the margins is
because of the origin of the term NAZARHNE in Mark
(1:24 - column 3) where it appears on the lips of a
demonized man who refers to Jesus as "a Nazaraene of
Jesus" (cf. the variant SOU in Vaticanus).
Furthermore, in the second appearance (10:48 - column
55) Mark places the term NAZARHNE on the lips of a
small crowd in the Judean dialect, thus we read
"NAZWPAIOS."  That the scribes of Sinaiticus probably
understood it this way, is supported by the variant
Judea vs. Gallilee in Mk 1: 28 (column 4).  Hence, TON
NAZARHNON at 16:6 is placed in the margins, (a)
because this is the language of demons, and (b)
because the text of Mark in Sinaiticus supports this
theological interpretation.  Finally, the handful of
variants that arose in other manuscripts around this
term, probably arose on account of a lack of
understanding as to the authorial intent of Mark's
Gospel.  Yet, it is worth considering, if possibly the
Autograph contained TON NAZARHNON, and where.

Mark Thunderson.




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

Swanson Mark prints the wrong page 159. I have uploaded the correct page into
the files section of the list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/files/

(1.8 MB ! )

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

At 09:31 AM 11/21/2006 -0800, David Robert Palmer wrote:
>Has anyone else noticed that Swanson's volume on the Gospel of Mark,
>showing variants against Codex Vaticanus, published by William Cary
>press, skips from 9:4 on p. 159 to 10:16 on p. 160, but does show the
>missing parts of Mark 9 earlier?

In my copy, p. 159 is a duplicate of p. 135, but it came with a
loose-leaf replacement for p. 159 (Mark 10:12-15), so nothing is
missing.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson                             mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:                                   http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

(DRP, Brian, Wieland, the missing page is also online at
http://www.biblical-data.org/Archives.html .)

Mark 9:49 is a notable variant; it served as one of Hort's
centerpiece examples of Syrian conflations. Let's take a look at it:

The Alex reading is PAS GAR PURI ALISQHSETAI (Aleph has "EN" between
GAR and PURI, a slight embellishment). This is almost certainly the
Caesarean reading, too, supported by 565 700 Arm Geo. W reads "PAS
GAR PURI ALISGHQHSETAI."

The "Western" reading is PASA GAR QUSIA ALI ALISQHSETAI, supported by
D and the Old Latin.

The Byz reading is PAS GAR PURI ALISQHSETAI KAI PASA QUSIA ALI
ALISQHSETAI. (C supports this, with "EN" between GAR and PURI).
According to Hort, the Byz reading is supported by A C N X E F G H K
M S U V Gamma Pi, etc., Vulgate Gothic. The UBS apparatus also
mentions that Theta (with PURI ANALWQHSETAI), the Peshitta, the
Ethiopic version, and Old Latins f, l, and q support this reading.

(See Wieland's commentary for further details about attestation.)

Hort's explanation of the Byz. reading as a combination of the
Alexandrian and "Western" readings seems to have been adopted by many
subsequent text-critics, without much further comment. It's obvious,
right?

Um . . . not really.

Before considering the problem directly, let's look at what Metzger
postulated: "At a very early period, a scribe, having found in Lv.
2:13 a clue to the meaning of Jesus' enigmatic statement, wrote the
Old Testament passage in the margin of his copy of Mark.  In
subsequent copyings the marginal gloss was either substituted for the
words of the text, thus creating reading (2) [i.e., the "Western"
reading], or was added to the text, thus creating reading (3) [i.e.,
the Byz reading]." (p. 103, TextComm).

Leviticus 2:13 reads, in the LXX, KAI PAN DWRON QUSIAS UMWN ALI
ALISQHSETAI. So Metzger's theory (the same theory proposed by Hort,
without the dittographic typo in "Notes on Select Readings," p. 25,
that turns it into a reference to Leviticus *7*:13 -- an error which
also occurs in Hort's main text on p. 101) requires that a copyist
recollected Lev. 2:13 and placed in the margin not an exact quote,
but a paraphrase of the passage he had in mind.

Hort's/Metzger's theory implies that this very early scribe's
production had a very wide influence -- affecting Greek, Latin,
Ethiopic, and Syriac transmission-lines.

Now, when looking at the Byz reading with the final letters of the
preceding verse --
-AI PAS GAR PURI ALISQHSETAI KAI PASA QUSIA ALI ALISQHSETAI
it seems to me that the Alex. reading is easily explained as the
result of an ocular error, in which a copyist's line of sight skipped
from the first ALISQHSETAI to the second ALISQHSETAI, omitting the
material in-between. Similarly, the "Western" reading is easily
explained as the result of an ocular error, in which a copyist's line
of sight skipped from the -AI at the end of 9:48 to the -AI which
forms the end of the KAI that appears right before PASA QUSIA ALI
ALISQHSETAI.

Thus the Byz reading explains the others more simply than either of
the others explain the Byz reading.

A few other considerations:

(1) How likely is it that any copyist would *replace* PAS GAR PURI
ALISQHSETAI with PASA QUSIA ALI ALISQHSETAI? This is an integral part
of Hort's/Metzger's theory; it's the only explanation offered for the
origin of the "Western" reading. But it it really credible that any
copyist would intentionally make the text harder to understand in
this way?

(2) Are Metzger's comments about the reading in it-k persuasive?
Instead of picturing a scribe misreading O for Q and ALALW for
ALIALIS, doesn't it seem more probable that it-k displays a unique
gloss based on First Corinthians 3:15?  (Metzger's comment seems to
be based on an idea proposed by Lohmeyer, to the effect that it-k
displays a loose rendering of the LXX-text of Isaiah 66:24.)

(3) Which reading is harder? When the Alexandrian form of v. 49 is
considered with v. 50-51, it doesn't really seem particularly
enigmatic.  Doesn't the inclusion of KAI PASA QUSIA ALI ALISQHSETAI
render the passage more enigmatic?

(4) Was Leviticus 2:17 really the sort of O.T. passage that would
just leap to a copyist's mind when reading Mark 9:49? Suppose that
someone had marked the phrase to indicate that it was a quotation
from the Old Testament, and a subsequent copyist did not recall
reading it (since it's not the exact LXX text). Couldn't the
subsequent copyist have misinterpreted the "This is an O.T.
quotation" indicator as a "This is an interpolation" indicator, and
thus excised the words? Could something like this have happened in
Mark 9:44 and 9:46?

(5) Consider the Byz text of 9:48-50a arrayed like this:

OPOUOSKWLHXAUTWNOUTELEUTA
KAITOPUROUSBENNUTAI
PASGARPURIALISQHSETAI
KAIPASAQUSIAALIALISQHSETAI
KALONTOALAS...

Doesn't it look easy for both the Alex reading and the "Western"
reading to emerge from the Byz reading?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

At 09:31 AM 11/21/2006 -0800, David Robert Palmer wrote:
>Has anyone else noticed that Swanson's volume on the Gospel of Mark,
>showing variants against Codex Vaticanus, published by William Cary
>press, skips from 9:4 on p. 159 to 10:16 on p. 160, but does show the
>missing parts of Mark 9 earlier?

In my copy, p. 159 is a duplicate of p. 135, but it came with a
loose-leaf replacement for p. 159 (Mark 10:12-15), so nothing is
missing.

Stephen
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com
Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

___

They're not exactly umlauts.  They're umlautish, though:  pairs of
small "((" strokes in the margin alongside the text.  I just saw a
few of them, paging through a few electronic images of W onscreen.
Perhaps someone else (with a faster internet connection than what I
have) could work through all of Codex W and see if there are any
others, and if so, where they are, and what purpose they might serve,
and what variants they might signify.

Here are the three I noticed:

There's a (( mark alongside 10:22, on the left, beside the last line
of the page.  It could conceivably indicate knowledge of the variant
"KAI AGROUS" at the end of 10:22, a variant used by Clement (and one
which could be skipped by ocular error, KAI --> KAI).

There's a (( mark alongside 10:42, on the left, beside line 2.

And, there's a (( mark at 10:47, on the left, beside line 17, where
an entire verse (10:48) is omitted in the text.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

Sigh.  Sorry; false alarm.  Taking a closer, slower look, the
umlautish strokes are just imprints from the facing page.  Except
that one at 10:22.  Is that just a quirk -- a pen-test or something
related to line-ruling?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

When Henry A. Sanders began working on the Freer Gospels, many leaves were
stuck together.  He applied moisture to the leaves and separated them using
a kitchen knife.  This resulted in a common characteristic of the codex,
where ink was transferred by offset from one leaf to the adjacent leaf.
Timothy Brown has developed an image-processing procedure which allows us to
overlay reversed images of the opposite leaf (in the case of offset) or the
reverse side of the same leaf (in cases of show-through or bleed-through) to
distinguish between intentional scribal ink and artifacts.  He discussed
this process recently in his presentation at the SBL meeting in Washington,
DC.  Tim subscribes to this list, so perhaps he will be able to comment on
the specific pages in the Gospel of Mark to which James Snapp, Jr. was
referring.

J. Bruce Prior, PhD
853 Alder Street
Blaine, WA 98230-8030

_________________________________________________________________
View Athlete’s Collections with Live Search
http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGAC01

Mark Thunderson,

Thank u very much for that link. I am one of the people who downloaded
it, and was very happy of that.

I was thinking about letting it on eMule, but i didn't know about the
copyright of that one, so i didn't did it. Could I?

Maybe it could be great to have an account somewhere to put all files
like this and that people add credit from time to time.

Or maybe we can all share via P2P what we have and maintain a list
available on this site ?

It's just some idea ...

Thanks again anyway for the file. I didn't notice from what source did
you make this one, so I take the occasion to ask where i could find
stuff like that ?

Antoine

Antoine:

Thank you for your email.  I am delighted that you
would want to share the file on eMule.  You certainly
have my permission.  The file that I provided was only
a beta file.  There is a master file in the works,
while includes a much more exact replica of Codex
Sinaiticus.  This will be released in PDF format
sometime shortly - early 2007 (or as soon as it is
finished).

About this up-coming file, some of the features that
will be apparent are those that (so far as I know)
have never been discussed to date.  Indeed, if someone
were considering a PHD thesis, this would be something
worth considering.

Regards,

Mark Thunderson.



--- bob823y <bob823y@...> wrote:

> Mark Thunderson,
>
> Thank u very much for that link. I am one of the
> people who downloaded
> it, and was very happy of that.
>
> I was thinking about letting it on eMule, but i
> didn't know about the
> copyright of that one, so i didn't did it. Could I?
>
> Maybe it could be great to have an account somewhere
> to put all files
> like this and that people add credit from time to
> time.
>
> Or maybe we can all share via P2P what we have and
> maintain a list
> available on this site ?
>
> It's just some idea ...
>
> Thanks again anyway for the file. I didn't notice
> from what source did
> you make this one, so I take the occasion to ask
> where i could find
> stuff like that ?
>
> Antoine
>
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

I'm reading Larry Hurtado's newest book and in the preface he mentions
the Leuven Database of Ancient Books.  I've looked it up and the URL is

http://ldab.arts.kuleuven.be/ldab_text.php

click on list all... and let the adventure begin.  What a tremendous
resource!!!  Many thanks to Larry for mentioning it.


--
Jim West, ThD

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest  -- Biblical Studies Resources
http://drjimwest.wordpress.com  -- Weblog

As some here know, I've been working on a compilation of the text of
Mark for a while.  That project is just about over, and one of its
final pieces -- the star on the top of the Christmas tree, so to
speak -- has been the composition of an introduction to the text, the
text-critical approach used in the compilation, and the notation in
the notes (in the annotated edition, which is something like 102 full-
size pages long).

Here's what I've composed so far.  Comments, corrections, and
criticisms are welcome.

-------------

THE GREEK UNCIAL ARCHETYPE OF MARK

+++ INTRODUCTION +++

TEXTUAL CRITICISM'S GOALS AND GUIDELINES

Textual criticism is a science, not an art.  Its main goal is the
recovery of the original text of a document.  A secondary goal is the
discovery of the history of the transmission of the document's text.

Unlike a proof-reader who only compares a text to his idea of what
its author intended to write, the textual critic (the word "critic"
in this context means "analyst") compares copies of the text to each
other.  A place in the text where the copies disagree is called a
variant-unit.  The textual critic provisionally detects the causes of
the disagreeing readings in each variant-unit, and selects the
variant which, in his judgment, best represents what the author
wrote.  In this way, the textual critic reconstructs the archetype,
the ancestral text from which all available copies descend.  The
archetype is then proof-read, and closely contested variants are
reconsidered.  Where a non-extant reading appears to embody what the
author wrote, and it accounts for the extant variants, the textual
critic conjecturally emends the text.  The result of this analytical
process, when successfully performed, is the recovery of the original
text, that is, the text which the document contained when it was
first produced as a finished work by its author or authors.

The comparison of variants is undertaken according to several
standards, or "canons," of which the following are of chief
importance.

(1)  A reading which explains its competitors with greater elegance
and force than it is explained by any of them is more likely to be
original.
(2)  A reading supported by witnesses representing two or more
locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a
reading supported by witnesses representing only one locale.
(3)  A reading which can be shown to have had, in the course of the
transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real
or imagined), and which is rivaled by variants without such
difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original.
(4)  A reading supported by early attestation is more likely to be
original than a reading supported exclusively by recent attestation.
(5)  A reading which conforms a statement in the text to the form of
a similar statement in a similar document is less likely to be
original than a competing reading that does not exhibit conformity.
(6)  A reading which involves a rare term or expression is more
likely to be original than a reading which involves an ordinary term
or expression.
(7)  A reading which is consistent with the author's discernible
style, syntax, and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a
reading which deviates from the author's usual style, syntax, or from
the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been
capable of using.

The seven major internal indicators of authenticity are thus
(1) EXPLICATION - which reading best explains its rivals?
(2) DIVERSITY - which reading has the widest range of support in
early Christendom?
(3) DIFFICULTY - to what extent would each rival variant appear to
early copyists to invite change?
(4) ANTIQUITY - which reading has the oldest attestation?
(5) NON-CONFORMITY - which reading is least likely to have been the
result of the influence of copyists' familiarity with similar texts?
(6) RARITY - which reading, having an obscure word or expression,
would tend to provoke a copyist to substitute something more ordinary?
(7)  STYLE - which reading is most consistent with the author's
normal style and, to the extent that it can be discerned, his
vocabulary?

The weight given to each of these qualities will vary from one
reading to another.  No single canon is a completely reliable
guideline.  Different canons frequently counterbalance one another,
supporting different rival variants.  And even when several canons
support a reading, some special factor may militate against its
adoption.

Consideration of internal evidence should be framed by consideration
of the traits of the witnesses in which the variants are preserved.
The date of the witness, the skill of the copyist, and discernible
characteristics of particular transmission-lines (to abridge, expand,
adjust, or to rigorously preserve), considered together, may confer
special status to a copy, a group of copies, or to some other witness.

UNIQUE FACTORS IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Textual criticism of the New Testament involves some unique factors.
These include the following:

(1)  LITURGICAL ADJUSTMENTS.  Portions of the New Testament were
divided into sections; each section was assigned an annual day or
occasion on which it was to be read.  These sections were often
supplements by introductory phrases to provide some idea of their
setting in the text, and by insertions which served to provoke the
performance of a liturgical action when a particular passage was
read.  Liturgical adjustments also include the replacement of
pronouns with nouns, and the addition or expansion of titles.

(2)  LINGUISTIC ADJUSTMENTS.   These consist of instances in which
ancient koine Greek was conformed to Attic modes of expression, or in
which terms, word-order, spelling, and syntax were conformed to later
local standards.

(3)  THEOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENTS.  Copyists expected the text to promote
orthodox theology; as a result they sometimes made explicit a
theological statement which was otherwise merely implicit, or
adjusted the text in order to prevent misunderstanding of potentially
question-raising words or phrases.  On rare occasions, copyists
suspected that a copy in their possession had been corrupted by
heretics, and this provoked them to create what they perceived to be
a more orthodox statement.  Also, heretics did in fact corrupt the
text, and their copies were sometimes acquired by non-heretical
copyists who were sometimes aware and sometimes unaware of the
corruptions.

(4)  ANTI-JUDAIC ADJUSTMENTS.  Some copyists, interpreting the
destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the failure of the Second
Jewish Revolt in A.D. 132-134 as signs of divine displeasure, removed
or adjusted statements in the text which appeared favorable to the
Jewish people as a whole.

(5)  SEPTUAGINT CONFORMATION.  Loose quotations, combined quotations,
and paraphrases of the Septuagint, the popular Greek translation of
the Hebrew Bible, were adjusted so as to conform more precisely or
more fully to the Septuagint, or to the form of the Septuagint known
to copyists.

(6)  RETRO-TRANSLATION.  The Greek text of the New Testament books
was translated into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, and
Sahidic.  On rare occasions, a bilingual copyist allowed his
knowledge of, and familiarity with, the versional form of a passage
to affect the fidelity of his transmission of the Greek text.  This
sometimes resulted in the creation of a Greek translation of material
that originated in a non-Greek manuscript.

(7)  SACRED NAMES.  Very early in the transmission-stream --
apparently earlier than the sub-archetypes of all text-types --
copyists contracted several words of special significance, such as
"God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ," and "Spirit."  The list of
contractions varied among locales, and among copyists.  Variant-units
involving these words should be approached with special caution.

(8)  SCRIBAL FORMATS.  Features such as the type of handwriting, the
length of lines, paragraph-formation, the addition of commentaries or
margin-notes and symbols, the Eusebian Canons, colophons,
decorations, illustrations, and other embellishments introduced by
copyists can sometimes help identify a manuscript's place in the text-
stream.

TEXT-TYPES OF THE GOSPELS

The value of copies and groups of copies should be measured not only
according to their traits but also according to their discernible
history.  The transmission-history of the Gospels involved, in the
second century, the development of "local texts" -- forms of the text
endowed with unique traits and unique readings in different locales.

Textual critics have identified the local text-types of the Gospel of
Mark as the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text,
and the Byzantine Text.  These names derive from locales in which the
text-types were utilized (not necessarily the locales in which they
began).  Although it can be argued that these names are misnomers,
they are retained as the traditional terms for their contents.

Many textual critics have adopted the view, made famous by Westcott &
Hort in 1881, that the relationship of the Byzantine Text to the
Alexandrian Text and the Western Text is like the relationship of a
child to his parents.  Westcott & Hort attributed this blending to an
editor or editors near the end of the 200's.  However, subsequent
discoveries and analyses -- particularly the research of Harry Sturz
-- have shown that many unique Byzantine readings are demonstrably
earlier than Hort's assigned date for their creation, and that many
more Byzantine readings in the Gospels are not plausibly accounted
for as editorial creations.  This implies that the Byzantine Text
includes a substantial strata of ancient and independent readings.
This strata may be called the Proto-Byzantine Text.

Hort tentatively linked the origin of the Byzantine Text to Lucian of
Antioch, who was martyred in A.D. 312.  In  a list of saints'
commemoration-days from about 600, Lucian is credited with the
production of a Bible which contained the Old Testament and New
Testament, and which was taken to Nicomedia.  Probably Lucian
thoughtfully produced the text of the New Testament portion of his
Bible by comparing copies which represented the Alexandrian Text, a
form of the Western Text, and the local text of Antioch in Syria.
However, other witnesses to the Syrian text, such as the Gothic
Version (made c. 350 by Wulfilas) and the Peshitta, often disagree
with the Byzantine Text.  The simplest explanation of this is that
the Byzantine Text, as represented by the majority of Greek copies,
is a combination of two combinations:  the first being Lucian's
combination of Syrian, Alexandrian, and Western readings, and the
second being a combination of the text of Lucian's venerated copy and
the local text of Nicomedia and its environs.

Two further implications of this scenario are
(1) agreements between the Byzantine Text and the Syrian Text may
represent two local texts, and
(2) a reading in the Byzantine Text which disagrees with the Syrian
Text may be due to interference from Lucian (involving his rejection
of a Syrian reading which was previously shared by the Nicomedian and
Syrian Texts), but it may attest to a reading which was entrenched in
the local text of Nicomedia and survived the "invasion" of Lucian's
venerated copy and its amalgamated text.

Thus it should be clear that the canon which emphasizes the diversity
of attestation for a reading does not mainly involve quantities of
copies but quantities of local texts, where they appear to be
independent of one another.  The agreement of all text-types is
tremendously strong evidence of authenticity.  The agreement of three
out of four local texts, or, in the Gospel of Mark, four out of five,
is strong evidence of authenticity, which a dissenting reading can
only outweigh with very strong internal indicators of authenticity in
its favor.  Lesser proportions, however, are less important.

NOTATION

Knowledge of a manuscript's contents is valuable, but knowledge of
the contents of a manuscript's ancestor is more valuable, inasmuch as
the ancestor's relationship to the archetype is closer.  For this
reason, a summarized comparison of external evidence is usually
better served by a record of the readings of sub-archetypes than by a
record of the readings of individual manuscripts.  This notation-
technique compares the text-types to each other without allowing
incidental factors to have more weight than they deserve.  The degree
of veneration accorded to a copy's text, the physical climate where a
copy was kept, the amount of handling a copy endured, and the degree
to which its possessors were inclined to preserve it, rather than
replace it, have largely determined which text-type has the most
representatives, and which text-type has the oldest representatives.
These are nevertheless incidental factors which should not be allowed
to overshadow internal indicators of authenticity.

The citation of sub-archetypes allows the reader to perceive the
contents of non-extant ancestors of extant witnesses, and provides a
farther view of the transmission-stream than can be seen directly
from a simple list of witnesses.  Also, the citation of sub-
archetypes is preferable to inequitable or misleading notation-
methods in which many representatives of one text-type are
represented by a single siglum (notation-symbol) while a handful of
representatives of another text-type are individually listed.  In
some instances, however, where the leading representatives of a text-
type disagree among themselves, the reader is better served by a more
detailed presentation of external evidence.

COMMENDATION

I commend this work to the people of God, with the expectation that
the diligent and reverent reader will benefit from it, and that
whoever receives the message of this archetype will receive the
message of the original text of the Gospel of Mark.  Any mistakes in
the text are accidental, and are mine.

-----------

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

--- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
>
> Here's what I've composed so far.  Comments,
> corrections, and
> criticisms are welcome.
>
> -------------
>
> THE GREEK UNCIAL ARCHETYPE OF MARK
>
> +++ INTRODUCTION +++
>
> TEXTUAL CRITICISM'S GOALS AND GUIDELINES
>
> Textual criticism is a science, not an art.

To my thinking you've started off in absolutely the
wrong direction. Did you perhaps mean to say the
opposite of this, i.e., "Textual criticism is an art,
not a science"? I can't get any further into your
explanation than this, if you really did intend to
write things in the order in which they appeared in
your post. What you're saying seems in diametric
opposition to text criticism (admittedly mostly under
the rubric of critical study of the LXX) as I've
confronted and come to understand it.

James



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

From: brian.boland.dslw@...

To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] A Brief Intro to NTTC Goals and Guidelines

Science is the study of things that can be replicated and exactly the same results obtained using the same componets in exactly the same way. Text is about words whose meanings have subtle differences in the mind of each individual depending on when and where the words are read. Words paint a picture in the mind of the reader and as such must, to my thinking be an art form. The analysis of the ink, paper is a science but the words no.

Brian Boland

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
<voxverax@...> wrote:
>
> As some here know, I've been working on a compilation of the text of
> Mark for a while.  That project is just about over, and one of its
> final pieces -- the star on the top of the Christmas tree, so to
> speak -- has been the composition of an introduction to the text, the
> text-critical approach used in the compilation, and the notation in
> the notes (in the annotated edition, which is something like 102 full-
> size pages long).
>
> Here's what I've composed so far.  Comments, corrections, and
> criticisms are welcome.
>
Thanks.  I've printed a copy for perusal at leisure.

Martin Edwards

Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A.,

Brian B -

When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that
it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one.  The path to the
restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
critic's  imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order
to find something, not to create something.  Any artistry in the end-
product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
artistry.

James M. -

No; I really and sincerely meant to write "Textual criticism is a
science, not an art."
(I did mean to say "stratum" rather than "strata," though.)

Edward A. -

I really don't think that textual criticism is an art, because the
normal goal of art is to produce a work of art, rather than to
restore or repair one.  An artistic instinct may be a useful thing
for a textual critic to have (if the author was artistic, at least),
just as an artistic instinct may be required to repair a damaged
sculpture, but the sculpture-repairer's goal is to restore -- and,
where pieces are missing, to faithfully re-create -- the original
sculpture, not to engage in his own artistic expression or to express
anything except what the sculptor displayed.  Conjectural emendation
might overlap science and art -- like the re-creation of the
pulverized fingers of a statue might -- but conjectural emendation is
such a teensy-tiny aspect of New Testament textual criticism, it
doesn't seem justifiable to let it drive the classification of T.C.
into Art.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Curtisville Christian Church
Indiana (USA)
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

On the science/art thing, I think that New Testament textual criticism
is a bit of both and then some more. A lot of the discipline is (or
should be) forensic--that is, concerned with collecting, weighing, and
interpreting evidence. It is like what a judge does in a court room:
The cop says, "The defendant drove his vehicle into mine." A witness
says, "The officer staggered out of the hotel, got in his car, then
drove into that man's car." The judge weighs the evidence (and the
witnesses) then tries to decide what really happened.

Sometimes it is easy to work out what happened, and you can be certain
beyond reasonable doubt. Other times you might not be so certain. That
is why it is a good idea to say how sure you are of a conclusion. The
UBS Greek New Testament editors did this when they assigned letter
grades (A, B, C, D) to their preferred readings.

There is a lot of room for improvement in this area. Statistical
analysis can be applied to the evidence. I have been at work on
something along these lines and am almost ready to release the first
installment.

The art/science discussion reminds me of the internal/external
evidence dichotomy that has been used to classify the various
principles of NTtc. It seems to me that the art associates with the
internal and the science with the external.

Best

Tim Finney

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
<voxverax@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings Brian B, James M., and Edward A.,
>
> Brian B -
>
> When I say, "Textual criticism is a science, not an art," I mean that
> it is a restorative enterprise, not a creative one.  The path to the
> restoration of the contents of the autograph may involve the textual
> critic's  imagination and instincts, but they are employed in order
> to find something, not to create something.  Any artistry in the end-
> product should be the author's artistry, not the textual critic's
> artistry.
>
> James M. -
>
> No; I really and sincerely meant to write "Textual criticism is a
> science, not an art."
> (I did mean to say "stratum" rather than "strata," though.)
>
> Edward A. -
>
> I really don't think that textual criticism is an art, because the
> normal goal of art is to produce a work of art, rather than to
> restore or repair one.  An artistic instinct may be a useful thing
> for a textual critic to have (if the author was artistic, at least),
> just as an artistic instinct may be required to repair a damaged
> sculpture, but the sculpture-repairer's goal is to restore -- and,
> where pieces are missing, to faithfully re-create -- the original
> sculpture, not to engage in his own artistic expression or to express
> anything except what the sculptor displayed.  Conjectural emendation
> might overlap science and art -- like the re-creation of the
> pulverized fingers of a statue might -- but conjectural emendation is
> such a teensy-tiny aspect of New Testament textual criticism, it
> doesn't seem justifiable to let it drive the classification of T.C.
> into Art.
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
> James Snapp, Jr.
> Curtisville Christian Church
> Indiana (USA)
> www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
>

I was curious as to whether anyone on this list attended SBL, and if
so did they get a chance to visit Dr. Woodard's booth to see what he
had to show by way of evidence for 1st century dating ofCodex W.  It
would seem that if such claims were true, this would be headline news
for all text crit. scholars.  I'm also surprised the media hasn't
jumped on this story yet, considering the fuss they created over
Judas' gospel.  Dr. Woodard clearly isn't beating his drums hard
enough. ; )

-Steve

Yesterday a page of the Codex Sinaiticus was displayed in the Leipzig
University Library. It is the page 23 of folios that are in the Leipzig
University Library and it contains the text from the Book of Jeremiah
17.8b-18.6a. (A snap shot of the page is attached.)
  In a short lecture the history of the codex was sketched and the
international Codex Sinaiticus project was introduced.
  
  See details under
  http://db.uni-leipzig.de/aktuell/index.php?pmnummer=2006371


Viktor Golinets, M.A.

Altorientalisches Institut
Universität Leipzig

Institut für Semitistik
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München


Yahoo! 360° – Bloggen und Leute treffen. Erstellen Sie jetzt Ihre eigene Seite – kostenlos!.