Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Scribal Mark at Mk 4:18-19; 10:30; 16:6 (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)

Expand Messages
  • George Young
    Eeyore: ... Well, my gut feeling is that the original scribe makes the notation at 16:6, and if the original hand makes this comment, then by extrapolation he
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 20, 2006

      You first wrote :

      > (1) (earlier note first:) Since you yourself observe
      > that
      > 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.

      Well, my gut feeling is that the original scribe makes
      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 the
      > original copyist, how
      > can this be called a 'textual war'? Is he at war
      > with himself?

      My remarks above address this question to a certain
      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.


      Webber Young.

      > 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
      > worked.

      > 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,
      > Eeyore.
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George
      > Young
      > <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
      > exact
      > > same one we see at Mk 16:6). In all instances
      > there
      > > is the issue of *redundancy* in the text.
      > >
      > > For example, in Mark 4:18-19 the choking of the
      > Word
      > > occurs, and then it becomes (cursed?) and
      > unfruitful.
      > > Whereas in Vaticanus the second stage of
      > degeneracy
      > > (i.e., unfruitfulness) is seen as part of the same
      > > process of "choking." Similarly, in Mk 10:30
      > "houses,
      > > brothers, sisters...fields" are a verbatum
      > recitation
      > > of 10:29. In both instances, the scribe has place
      > > these "redundancies" into the margins *with a
      > scribal
      > > mark.* The same redundancy occurs at 16:6 too.
      > >
      > > From a text-critical point of view, my suspicion
      > is
      > > that the scribe who copied the Gospel of Mark is
      > the
      > > same scribe who added these special notations in
      > the
      > > margins. Furthermore, these marginal notations
      > are
      > > essentially the main text of Vaticanus. That is,
      > the
      > > scribe of Sinaiticus is writing Vaticanus in the
      > > margins. Tischendorf, et al. have drawn and often
      > do
      > > draw some correspondance between the two texts.
      > In
      > > 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
      > argument
      > > to mount. My own take on the matter - and BTW, I
      > have
      > > not read the entire manuscript of Sinaiticus yet,
      > but
      > > I have read Mark - is that there are at least 2,
      > maybe
      > > 3 different scribes' work evident in Mark. But if
      > the
      > > orginal scribe is moving Vaticanus into the
      > margins,
      > > then there is certainly a textual "war" going on!
      > > Moreover, this so-called war does seem to have
      > been
      > > resolved 150 years later in Alexandrinus, wherein
      > many
      > > 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
      > far
      > > > 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
      > going
      > > > on here?
      > >


      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.