Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Scribal Mark at Mk 4:18-19; 10:30; 16:6 (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
You first wrote :
> (1) (earlier note first:) Since you yourself observeWell, my gut feeling is that the original scribe makes
> this 'corrector' does not follow the habits of the
> original hand, why
> do you take the view that it *is* the original
> scribe? Many scribes
> and correctors from the same period (even
> scriptorium) can look
> alike, especially for short bursts. Here however,
> you seem to be
> sidestepping the strongest evidence for two
> different hands.
the notation at 16:6, and if the original hand makes
this comment, then by extrapolation he probably makes
the other 2 (two) as well. Why? He might have placed
them in the margin for the following reasons:
1. Out of frustration, he spells out the name of
"Jesus" just in case some of his fellow scribes might
misunderstand who exactly is being announced as risen
from the dead. Especially those who might doubt its
really Jesus, if TON NARARHNON is not included.
2. The scriptorium itself may have been under pressure
to conform to a particular text, i.e., one like
Vaticanus, yet out of their fidelity to the Word, and
their own highest principles, choose to "conform,"
albeit only in the margins.
> (2) If as you pose, the corrector is also theMy remarks above address this question to a certain
> original copyist, how
> can this be called a 'textual war'? Is he at war
> with himself?
extent. But I suppose I might add that (and I'm sure
you are aware of this), there were many anathemas
being declared in those days. Conformity seems to
have been the "big idea" for the now State Church.
Even Origen of Alexandria was honoured in this way.
However, even if the original scribe in the same who
makes the marginal notation with an insertion/removal
mark, there is also aother notations which seem to me
to be done my another hand. Note the remarks that are
less "neat-n-tidy" and which are bunched-up at the end
of lines, sometimes between lines, and so forth.
That's why I suspect at least two scribes evident on
the pages of Mark. Nonetheless, there might be a
third scribe eveident in those instances where dots
have been placed above words and phrases (e.g., Mk.
9:43b). However, even in this third instance, the
meaning of the dots is not clear. My first assumption
is that they belong to some sort of ancient
text-critical apparatus. But I might be wrong. They
could be also there for emphasis.
The theory that you outline below is very plausible.
> Let me propose what seems to me to be a plausible**************************************
> (a) The corrector is *not* the original copyist, but
> an overseer.
> (b) The corrector uses a 'Vatican-like' exemplar or
> master copy for
> corrections. But the scribe of Sinaiticus used
> instead the 'best'
> (or the only) master copy available in the
> scriptorium where he
> Now picture this:
> (1) In scriptorium 'Sinaiticus', the copyist
> executes his best copy
> from his oldest exemplar(s), following both the text
> and possibly the
> canon as he knows it.
> (2) The manuscript (possibly one of the ones
> commissioned under
> Constantine or whatever) is transported to its
> destination for final
> checking and approval.
> (3) There, perhaps as you suggest, it is 'edited' to
> conform to
> the 'Eusebius-approved' text or what have you.
> (4) Meanwhile, Codex Vaticanus is executed in
> scriptorium 'Vaticanus', from an exemplar likely a
> descendant of P75
> or some such piece of work, already having been
> edited in stages to
> conform to the 'new text standard'.
> (5) Its all a lovely bit of Alexandrian editing and
> massaging, but
> the result is a text that no modern textual critic
> would have
> concocted from the same evidence, using (hopefully)
> more modern
> methods and hypotheses.
> Just a thought,
> --- In email@example.com, George
> <webber_young@...> wrote:
> > Dear TC Group:
> > Just an update with respect to my last email. I
> > checked all instances in the Gospel of Mark
> > (Sinaiticus) where the scribal mark occurs (the
> > same one we see at Mk 16:6). In all instances
> > is the issue of *redundancy* in the text.
> > For example, in Mark 4:18-19 the choking of the
> > occurs, and then it becomes (cursed?) and
> > Whereas in Vaticanus the second stage of
> > (i.e., unfruitfulness) is seen as part of the same
> > process of "choking." Similarly, in Mk 10:30
> > brothers, sisters...fields" are a verbatum
> > of 10:29. In both instances, the scribe has place
> > these "redundancies" into the margins *with a
> > mark.* The same redundancy occurs at 16:6 too.
> > From a text-critical point of view, my suspicion
> > that the scribe who copied the Gospel of Mark is
> > same scribe who added these special notations in
> > margins. Furthermore, these marginal notations
> > essentially the main text of Vaticanus. That is,
> > scribe of Sinaiticus is writing Vaticanus in the
> > margins. Tischendorf, et al. have drawn and often
> > draw some correspondance between the two texts.
> > the past, Tischendorf did try to connect the
> scribe of
> > Sinaiticus with one of the scribes of Vaticanus,
> > although this seems to me to be a difficult
> > to mount. My own take on the matter - and BTW, I
> > not read the entire manuscript of Sinaiticus yet,
> > I have read Mark - is that there are at least 2,
> > 3 different scribes' work evident in Mark. But if
> > orginal scribe is moving Vaticanus into the
> > then there is certainly a textual "war" going on!
> > Moreover, this so-called war does seem to have
> > resolved 150 years later in Alexandrinus, wherein
> > of these scriptural "battles" are smoothed out.
> > W.Y.
> > --- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
> > > At Mark 16:6 I find the action of the Scribe in
> > > Sinaiticus very interesting.
> > > Note: He spells out the name "Jesus."
> > > > > Now, what caught my attention about this
> verse in
> > > Sinaiticus is that, *so far as I know* (i.e., so
> > > as I can remember after reading through Mark in
> > > Sinaiticus), I cannot remember the scribe in
> > > Sinaiticus ever spelling out the name "Jesus" -
> > > except
> > > this one instance!
> > > Fellow textual critics, what do you suppose is
> > > on here?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around