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

Cancel-Sheets in Aleph (Short Note)

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Dear George Young: I was advising you to consult the introduction -- the prefatory material that precedes the facsimile-pages -- for Lake s comments. (Some of
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear George Young:

      I was advising you to consult the introduction -- the prefatory
      material that precedes the facsimile-pages -- for Lake's comments.
      (Some of the same data is presented by Scrivener in his Full
      Collation of Codex Sinaiticus, another nice resource.) Besides the
      drastic shifts in the rate of letters-per-column, there's also a
      noticeable change in orthography (esp. re. itacisms) and in the use
      of the diple-mark -- features present not only here at the end of
      Mark, but in the other cancel-sheets (fol. 10, 15, 88, and 91).

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • George Young
      Dear James Snapp: That there are cancel sheets in Sinaiticus, is not really related to my argument per se. Your argument *needs* a cancelled sheet at the end
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear James Snapp:

        That there are cancel sheets in Sinaiticus, is not
        really related to my argument per se. Your argument
        *needs* a cancelled sheet at the end of Mark AND a
        correcting scribe to survive. I have read through the
        introductory pages of Kirsopp Lake's facsimile edition
        to Sinaiticus. One thing that stands out in his
        argumentation is the amount of modesty and
        carefullness with respect to his observations. For
        example:

        1. He notes that Tischendorf's facsimile edition is
        "the most perfect facsimile edition which was ever
        published in the pre-photographic period." Lake's
        facsimile, while beneficial, is not the successor to
        Tischendorf's in my opinion. Perhaps the new
        digitized images of Sinaiticus will indeed surpass
        Tischendorf's facsimile.

        2. Reading through Lake's introduction, it becomes
        evident to me, with respect to the history of
        scholarship on Sinaiticus, that the multiplication of
        "correctors" and "corrections" is a endemic cycle of
        the academic enterprise. It is easy to postulate
        *another* corrector in the pursuit and justification
        of one's own opinion.

        3. Kirsopp Lake states, "At first sight the whole
        codex seems to have been written by the same hand."
        While no textual critic would buy into this assertion,
        there does seem to be a veiled warning against
        postulating a "community text" (perhaps the parallel
        can be found in the assumptions of the now out-dated
        method of Form Criticism - advocated almost
        messianically by R. Bultmann).

        4. Tischendorf theorized that the manuscript was the
        work of four (4) original scribes (A,B,C,D). Lake
        maintained that scribe A wrote all of the canonical
        NT, and theorized that scribe D was the one
        responsible for some of the corrections and
        *cancelled-leaves.* Yet, with respect to scribe D,
        Lake cannot help but *admit* that he CANNOT describe
        who Scribe D is! He states: "...it [sic] is more
        easily perceived than described." (p. xix) Again he
        ponders, "possibly the letters are more square in D
        than in A?" (p. xix) Still more, he wonders with
        respect to scribe D, "Some of these corrections seem
        really to be in the same hand as the text [i.e.,
        Scribe A!]." (p. xxi) Still more doubts arise, "Some
        [of B's corrections] very slightly...but so slightly
        [from A] that they are clearly...made in the
        scriptorium." (p. xxi) FINALLY, even Kirsopp Lake
        must bow and ask: "Are they a different hand [i.e.,
        scribe A and scribe B] or not?" (p. xxi).

        James, my argument is this: it is plausible and
        certainly probable, that Scribe A and Scribe B are the
        SAME hand. Before I read Kirsopp Lake, I came to this
        conclusion. And that at Mk 16:6 (and elsewhere) the
        scribe spells out the name IHSOUN and removes "TON
        NAZARHNON" to the margins. In other words, some
        scribes remove, others add. Lastly, one final note:
        the passage you cite at Mk 15:47 in Lake's facsimile
        as an *omission* of scribe B (i.e., the one with the
        arrow pointing to the bottom of the column), I
        seriously question if this can be dated to the 4th
        century. Tischendorf's ommission of this editorial
        note is worth considering.

        Sincerely,

        Webber Young.



        --- "James Snapp, Jr." <snapp@...> wrote:

        > Dear George Young:
        >
        > I was advising you to consult the introduction --
        > the prefatory
        > material that precedes the facsimile-pages -- for
        > Lake's comments.
        > (Some of the same data is presented by Scrivener in
        > his Full
        > Collation of Codex Sinaiticus, another nice
        > resource.) Besides the
        > drastic shifts in the rate of letters-per-column,
        > there's also a
        > noticeable change in orthography (esp. re. itacisms)
        > and in the use
        > of the diple-mark -- features present not only here
        > at the end of
        > Mark, but in the other cancel-sheets (fol. 10, 15,
        > 88, and 91).
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        > Curtisville Christian Church
        > Indiana (USA)
        > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >



        **************************************



        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • James Snapp, Jr.
        Dear George Young: I m not sure about what you are trying to say. If Scribe A and Scribe B are the same person, then the T. NAZ. in the margin at 16:6 is a
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear George Young:

          I'm not sure about what you are trying to say. If Scribe A and
          Scribe B are the same person, then the T. NAZ. in the margin at 16:6
          is a self-correction. If Scribe A and Scribe B are not the same
          person, then the T. NAZ. in the margin at 16:6 is still a self-
          correction. Because the cancel-sheet was produced by neither A nor B.

          GY: "Your argument *needs* a cancelled sheet at the end of Mark AND a
          correcting scribe to survive."

          Yes; those are components of the argument. But there's no question
          that this is a cancel-sheet, and there's no question that it was
          written by a correcting scribe (after another scribe had written the
          text which precedes and follows the material on the cancel-sheet).
          The rate of letters-per-column, the spelling-variations, and the
          diple-usage all point in the same direction in this regard.

          GY: 1. He notes that Tischendorf's facsimile edition is "the most
          perfect facsimile edition which was ever published in the pre-
          photographic period."

          I don't see the relevance of that.

          GY: "2. Reading through Lake's introduction, it becomes evident to
          me, with respect to the history of scholarship on Sinaiticus, that
          the multiplication of "correctors" and "corrections" is a endemic
          cycle of the academic enterprise."

          Whether that is or is not the case, such a general point has no
          impact on this quite specific question.

          GY: "Kirsopp Lake states, "At first sight the whole codex seems to
          have been written by the same hand." While no textual critic would
          buy into this assertion, there does seem to be a veiled warning
          against postulating a "community text" (perhaps the parallel
          can be found in the assumptions of the now out-dated method of Form
          Criticism - advocated almost messianically by R. Bultmann).

          I don't see the connection between your sentences. Lake does say
          that, as he proceeds to bring to light the pieces of evidence which
          lead to the firm conclusion that the codex was *not* written by a
          single scribe. But how is that any sort of warning except a warning
          against trusting casual impressions? (After all, he continues the
          same sentence by saying, "but a closer inspection shows that this is
          erroneous").

          GY: "With respect to scribe D, Lake cannot help but *admit* that he
          CANNOT describe who Scribe D is! He states: "...it [sic] is more
          easily perceived than described." (p. xix) Again he ponders,
          "possibly the letters are more square in D than in A?" (p. xix)

          Lake does not mean what you seem to think he means. He states
          explicitly that "The discrimination of D from A and B is easier
          [easier, that is, than the discrimination between A and B - JES] and
          admits of no reasonable doubt." And earlier, Lake specified Scribe D
          as the producer of the cancel-sheets: "it is tolerably clear that
          ... D wrote the text on the conjugate leaves" (i.e., the cancel-
          sheets, as Lake says on the same page: "The conjugate leaves written
          by D are clearly 'cancel-leaves'").

          When Lake states, "There is a distinct difference in the script,
          though it is more easily perceived than described," he is merely
          summing up his observation about the difference in the subtle
          aesthetic qualities of the scripts. "D is altogether prettier than
          A," Lake says. But "prettiness" is not the most scientific of
          adjectives; that is why Lake frames this as perception. Plus, the
          "prettiness" of D's handwriting is not the only clue leading to the
          conclusion that we are looking at a cancel-sheet here, as you already
          know from the rest of what Lake says, and what I have already pointed
          out. Lake's statement that he can't find words to scientifically
          measure the differences between D's handwriting and the handwriting
          of A and B is not at all a statement that Lake cannot describe who D
          is. Lake is quite sure, as we should be, that D is not A or B.

          GY: "Still more, he wonders with respect to scribe D, "Some of these
          corrections seem really to be in the same hand as the text [i.e.,
          > Scribe A!]." (p. xxi)"

          But the question, "Was a particular correction made by Scribe A as he
          realized his mistake, or by Scribe D during proof-reading?" could be
          answered either way without materially affecting the question about
          the cancel-sheet. The idea that Scribe A sometimes made self-
          corrections doesn't disturb the evidence about the cancel-sheets.

          GY: "FINALLY, even Kirsopp Lake must bow and ask: "Are they a
          different hand [i.e., scribe A and scribe B] or not?" (p. xxi)."

          Yup, but that is a separate question. Lake doesn't attribute the
          cancel-sheets to A or to B; he attributes them to Scribe D. In light
          of this, any extrapolation about the contents of the cancel-sheet at
          the end of Mark/start of Luke that starts with the idea that Scribe A
          is Scribe is fundamentally flawed because the two points are
          completely unconnected.

          GY: "The passage you cite at Mk 15:47 in Lake's facsimile as an
          *omission* of scribe B (i.e., the one with the arrow pointing to the
          bottom of the column), I seriously question if this can be dated to
          the 4th century. Tischendorf's ommission of this editorial
          note is worth considering."

          Regardless of the date at which the correction was noticed and the
          missing text was placed in the margin, the *omission* dates from the
          same time as the rest of the page!

          Milne & Skeat wrote about the Scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and took
          things to the next level; you may want to see what they have to say
          on the subject (or at least data-mine Skeat's 1999 essay about
          Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        • George Young
          Dear James Snapp: What I was intending to point out is that even Kirsopp Lake was unable to state definitively that Scribe A and Scribe D are two (2) different
          Message 4 of 7 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear James Snapp:

            What I was intending to point out is that even Kirsopp
            Lake was unable to state definitively that Scribe A
            and Scribe D are two (2) different hands. (I think I
            said Scribe A & B at one point in my previous email,
            but I meant Scribes **A** and **D**). Indeed, the
            language he uses shows considerable doubt that they
            are two separate scribes. His reasoning, so far as I
            can gather, is based upon the actual style of writing
            between scribes A & D, but he is unable to give any
            real evidence for "Scribe D." In other words, Scribe
            D is merely an hypothesis to explain other features
            connected to the text of Sinaiticus. However, the
            scribal mark used at Mk 4:19, 10:30, and 16:6 is
            unique among the marginal notes (It occurs only three
            times in the Gospel of Mark). In each instance, the
            scribal mark appears to indicate ***repetition*** in
            the text. For example, in Mk 4:19, if we insert the
            marginal note where the sign indicates, besides
            creating a type of syntactical "jam," there would be
            the repetition of the word "choke" as well as a change
            in Jesus' teaching about the WORD and the Thorns. In
            Mk 10:30, inserting the marginal note would create a
            literal repetition of several words. Lastly, in Mk
            16:6 there is again the issue of repetition, yet this
            time Scribe A spells it out for us - BUT ONLY HERE.
            Your argument does provide an explanation, but only a
            partial explanation. The uniqueness of the scribal
            mark in these three instances in which it occurs
            ***links them all together.*** These are not the
            usual so-called "errors." If you look at 4:19 that
            becomes plain, at least to me. The scribe is doing
            something, perhaps even *saying something* to the
            reader, this is my interest. My argument only
            connects to your hypothesis regarding the cancelled
            leaf and so forth, insofar as you postulate another
            Scribe (i.e., D). But I feel that I have sufficiently
            shown that this is hypothetical in nature, and an
            hypothesis that even Kirsopp Lake was not certain
            about. (It could be that he is running with
            Tischendorf's conclusions, but he does question them
            elsewhere especially with respect to Vaticanus).
            Scribe D is an hypothesis. Furthermore, I did glance
            elsewhere in Sinaiticus looking for instances of flux
            in the number of characters per column, and there are
            many.

            If however, Scribe A and Scribe D are the SAME person,
            then these marginal notes become all the more
            intriguing, and it opens up a new discussion (so far
            as I know) with respect to the LINKS between
            Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, because he is writing
            Vaticanus in the margins (which, BTW, was one
            Tischendorf's primary intrigues). However, my
            suspicion is that the link between the two is not one
            of harmony, but perhaps two (2) scriptoriums vieing
            over principals of fidelitiy to the WORD (much like
            textual critiques today, among which their most noble
            piece of work is, not a manuscript, but the ecclectic
            Greek NT).

            If these three insertion/removal marks (i.e., 4:19,
            10:30, 16:6) are linked...if these three are
            removals...if these three are "statements," then we
            are in need of many revisions.

            With respect to my comments about Tischendorf's
            facsimile and so forth...I only mention them to
            indicate that Lake's facsimile is outdated. The
            Photographic Technology at the turn of the last
            century i.e., 1909, is inadequate for reliable
            scholarship. I have also noticed that some scholars
            say things like, "...it is obvious from Lake's
            facsimile..." Actually, this is not always the case.
            This sometimes sounds like rhetoric to me, in my
            opinion. Finally, the scribal note at 15:47, which is
            evident in Lake's facsimile but absent in
            Tischendorf's, is open to question. Why did
            Tischendorf omit it? Was it even there when
            Tischendorf hand the codex? Or was it a latter
            addition? Obviously there are many questions. Its
            too bad we can't have a look at the original codex
            ourselves. I can't wait until the digitized images
            come out.

            Thank you for your comments,

            Webber Young.



            --- "James Snapp, Jr." <snapp@...> wrote:

            > Dear George Young:
            >
            > I'm not sure about what you are trying to say. If
            > Scribe A and
            > Scribe B are the same person, then the T. NAZ. in
            > the margin at 16:6
            > is a self-correction. If Scribe A and Scribe B are
            > not the same
            > person, then the T. NAZ. in the margin at 16:6 is
            > still a self-
            > correction. Because the cancel-sheet was produced
            > by neither A nor B.
            >
            > GY: "Your argument *needs* a cancelled sheet at the
            > end of Mark AND a
            > correcting scribe to survive."
            >
            > Yes; those are components of the argument. But
            > there's no question
            > that this is a cancel-sheet, and there's no question
            > that it was
            > written by a correcting scribe (after another scribe
            > had written the
            > text which precedes and follows the material on the
            > cancel-sheet).
            > The rate of letters-per-column, the
            > spelling-variations, and the
            > diple-usage all point in the same direction in this
            > regard.
            >
            > GY: 1. He notes that Tischendorf's facsimile
            > edition is "the most
            > perfect facsimile edition which was ever published
            > in the pre-
            > photographic period."
            >
            > I don't see the relevance of that.
            >
            > GY: "2. Reading through Lake's introduction, it
            > becomes evident to
            > me, with respect to the history of scholarship on
            > Sinaiticus, that
            > the multiplication of "correctors" and "corrections"
            > is a endemic
            > cycle of the academic enterprise."
            >
            > Whether that is or is not the case, such a general
            > point has no
            > impact on this quite specific question.
            >
            > GY: "Kirsopp Lake states, "At first sight the whole
            > codex seems to
            > have been written by the same hand." While no
            > textual critic would
            > buy into this assertion, there does seem to be a
            > veiled warning
            > against postulating a "community text" (perhaps the
            > parallel
            > can be found in the assumptions of the now out-dated
            > method of Form
            > Criticism - advocated almost messianically by R.
            > Bultmann).
            >
            > I don't see the connection between your sentences.
            > Lake does say
            > that, as he proceeds to bring to light the pieces of
            > evidence which
            > lead to the firm conclusion that the codex was *not*
            > written by a
            > single scribe. But how is that any sort of warning
            > except a warning
            > against trusting casual impressions? (After all, he
            > continues the
            > same sentence by saying, "but a closer inspection
            > shows that this is
            > erroneous").
            >
            > GY: "With respect to scribe D, Lake cannot help but
            > *admit* that he
            > CANNOT describe who Scribe D is! He states: "...it
            > [sic] is more
            > easily perceived than described." (p. xix) Again he
            > ponders,
            > "possibly the letters are more square in D than in
            > A?" (p. xix)
            >
            > Lake does not mean what you seem to think he means.
            > He states
            > explicitly that "The discrimination of D from A and
            > B is easier
            > [easier, that is, than the discrimination between A
            > and B - JES] and
            > admits of no reasonable doubt." And earlier, Lake
            > specified Scribe D
            > as the producer of the cancel-sheets: "it is
            > tolerably clear that
            > ... D wrote the text on the conjugate leaves" (i.e.,
            > the cancel-
            > sheets, as Lake says on the same page: "The
            > conjugate leaves written
            > by D are clearly 'cancel-leaves'").
            >
            > When Lake states, "There is a distinct difference in
            > the script,
            > though it is more easily perceived than described,"
            > he is merely
            > summing up his observation about the difference in
            > the subtle
            > aesthetic qualities of the scripts. "D is
            > altogether prettier than
            > A," Lake says. But "prettiness" is not the most
            > scientific of
            > adjectives; that is why Lake frames this as
            > perception. Plus, the
            > "prettiness" of D's handwriting is not the only clue
            > leading to the
            > conclusion that we are looking at a cancel-sheet
            > here, as you already
            > know from the rest of what Lake says, and what I
            > have already pointed
            > out. Lake's statement that he can't find words to
            > scientifically
            > measure the differences between D's handwriting and
            > the handwriting
            > of A and B is not at all a statement that Lake
            > cannot describe who D
            > is. Lake is quite sure, as we should be, that D is
            > not A or B.
            >
            > GY: "Still more, he wonders with respect to scribe
            > D, "Some of these
            > corrections seem really to be in the same hand as
            > the text [i.e.,
            > > Scribe A!]." (p. xxi)"
            >
            > But the question, "Was a particular correction made
            > by Scribe A as he
            > realized his mistake, or by Scribe D during
            > proof-reading?" could be
            > answered either way without materially affecting the
            > question about
            > the cancel-sheet. The idea that Scribe A sometimes
            > made self-
            > corrections doesn't disturb the evidence about the
            > cancel-sheets.
            >
            > GY: "FINALLY, even Kirsopp Lake must bow and ask:
            > "Are they a
            > different hand [i.e., scribe A and scribe B] or
            > not?" (p. xxi)."
            >
            > Yup, but that is a separate question. Lake doesn't
            > attribute the
            > cancel-sheets to A or to B; he attributes them to
            > Scribe D. In light
            > of this, any extrapolation about the contents of the
            > cancel-sheet at
            > the end of Mark/start of Luke that starts with the
            > idea that Scribe A
            > is Scribe is fundamentally flawed because the two
            > points are
            > completely unconnected.
            >
            > GY: "The passage you cite at Mk 15:47 in Lake's
            > facsimile as an
            > *omission* of scribe B (i.e., the one with the arrow
            > pointing to the
            > bottom of the column), I seriously question if this
            > can be dated to
            > the 4th century. Tischendorf's ommission of this
            > editorial
            > note is worth considering."
            >
            > Regardless of the date at which the correction was
            > noticed and the
            > missing text was placed in the margin, the
            > *omission* dates from the
            > same time as the rest of the page!
            >
            > Milne & Skeat wrote about the Scribes of Codex
            > Sinaiticus and took
            > things to the next level; you may want to see what
            > they have to say
            > on the subject (or at least data-mine Skeat's 1999
            > essay about
            > Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > James Snapp, Jr.
            > Curtisville Christian Church
            > Indiana (USA)
            > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >



            **************************************



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • James Snapp, Jr.
            Dear George Young: Kirsopp Lake DID state definitively that Scribe A and Scribe D are two different hands: The discrimination of D from A and B is easier and
            Message 5 of 7 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear George Young:

              Kirsopp Lake DID state definitively that Scribe A and Scribe D are
              two different hands: "The discrimination of D from A and B is easier
              and admits of no reasonable doubt." What part of "admits of no
              reasonable doubt" are you interpreting to mean "doubtful"???

              GY: "In other words, Scribe D is merely an hypothesis to explain
              other features connected to the text of Sinaiticus."

              No; the existence of Scribe D is a deduction drawn directly from the
              evidence, evidence which includes, as I've said, not only the subtle
              aesthetic differences which Lake mentioned but also the accelerated
              rates of letters-per-column, orthographic/itacistic variation, and
              the use of the diple-mark (to which could be added differing
              treatments of nomina sacra, and the lack of the Eusebian Canons in
              the cancel-sheets in Matthew, as I recall).

              GY: "In Mk 10:30, inserting the marginal note would create a literal
              repetition of several words"

              It would? How? (Btw, notice that the contents of the correction in
              Sinaiticus differs from the text of B here; B has "mhteras" but
              Aleph's corrector has "mhtera." This -- and the hundreds of textual
              differences not noted in the margins -- does not bode well for the
              idea that someone was putting B's readings into the margins of
              Sinaiticus.)

              GY: "Lastly, in Mk 16:6 there is again the issue of repetition, yet
              this time Scribe A spells it out for us - BUT ONLY HERE."

              First, the scribe here isn't Scribe A; it's Scribe D. Second,
              there's no repetition involved here; the margin-note consists of the
              insertion of a skipped phrase.

              GY: "The uniqueness of the scribal mark in these three instances in
              which it occurs ***links them all together.*** These are not the
              usual so-called "errors." If you look at 4:19 that becomes plain, at
              least to me."

              However typical or non-typical the errors are, the marks and the
              corrections alongside them are nothing special. (Btw, in 4:19,
              Aleph's reading after the margin-correction is taken into account
              disagrees with B; words are transposed. Again, this does not readily
              support the idea that the corrector was writing material from
              Vaticanus in the margins.)

              GY: "I feel that I have sufficiently shown that this [the existence
              of Scribe D] is hypothetical in nature, and an hypothesis that even
              Kirsopp Lake was not certain about."

              Hmm. Audience??

              GY: "Finally, the scribal note at 15:47, which is evident in Lake's
              facsimile but absent in Tischendorf's, is open to question. Why did
              Tischendorf omit it? Was it even there when Tischendorf had the
              codex?"

              My offhand guess is that Tischendorf discerned (correctly or
              incorrectly) that this note was added after the MS left its
              scriptorium, and his intention was to display the state of the text
              as it existed upon, but not after, its departure.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
              Curtisville Christian Church
              Indiana (USA)
              www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            • George Young
              Dear James Snapp: Concerning the marginal notes in Sinaiticus, every textual critic should hold them in the highest regard. My understanding of the textual
              Message 6 of 7 , May 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear James Snapp:

                Concerning the marginal notes in Sinaiticus, every
                textual critic should hold them in the highest regard.
                My understanding of the textual apparatus in
                Sinaiticus is that we can trace them back to the
                critical signs first devised by Aristarchus of
                Alexandria, who was the chief Grammarian at the
                scribal school of Alexandria during the reign of
                Philopater (222-205 BC). As you know, Sinaiticus
                traces both its lineage and textual exemplar back
                through to Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD). In his
                own study of the Holy Scriptures, Origen adopted
                several text-critical signs from his Alexandrian
                educators. Two of these text-critical signs are first
                the *Asterisk, which was an X with four dots placed
                between the lines, and the second was the Obelus,
                which was a line with two dotes placed on either side.
                The - Asterisk - when placed in the manuscript
                indicated a reading worthy of *special attention.*
                The Obelus indicated a variant which the scribe judged
                to be worthy of *censure* or *removal.* What we have
                in the Gospel of Mark at 4:19, 10:30, and yes 16:6 is
                an *OBELUS* (or, more correctly, a Metobelus which is
                a more refined form of the Obelus drawn at a 45 degree
                angle with two dotes placed mid-way up the line).

                Now, returning to your assertion regarding Scribe D,
                the Canceled-Sheet Theory, and so forth. First, I
                reiterate that Kirsopp Lake did not state definitively
                that Scribe D exists. Tischendorf theorized that the
                manuscript was the work of four (4) original scribes
                (A,B,C,D). Kirsopp Lake maintained that scribe A wrote
                all of the canonical NT, and theorized that scribe D
                was the one responsible for some of the corrections
                and *canceled-leaves.* Yet, with respect to scribe D,
                Lake cannot help but *admit* that he CANNOT describe
                who Scribe D is! He states: "...it [sic] is more
                easily PERCEIVED than described." (p. xix) Again he
                ponders, "POSSIBLY the letters are more square in D
                than in A?" (p. xix) Still more, he wonders with
                respect to scribe D, "Some of these corrections SEEM
                REALLY TO BE IN THE SAME HAND as the text [i.e.,
                Scribe A!]." (p. xxi) Still more doubts arise, "Some
                [of D's corrections] very slightly...but so slightly
                [from A] that they are clearly...made in the
                scriptorium." (p. xxi) FINALLY, Kirsopp Lake must ask:
                "Are they a different hand [i.e., scribe A and scribe
                D] or not?" (p. xxi). No, they are the same hand. This
                sort of language indicates that Lake is, as it were,
                "reasoning out loud."

                But it would be unfair to Lake to supposed that he
                cannot put forward some sort of argument. Shortly
                after taking the photographs of Sinaiticus in St.
                Petersburg in 1909, he obviously wanted to say
                something to scholars! He felt compelled to provide
                them with some argument with which to work. In other
                words, he puts together an argument which at the time
                seemed good to him and then offers it up to the
                academic community. In the end, however, he simply
                summarizes the relevant data concerning Sinaiticus,
                and reiterates what Tischendorf said 50 years
                earlier. Even H.B. Swete wasn’t all that impressed
                with Lake’s arguments, nor with his facsimile. For
                even after its publication, in 1914 Swete wrote that a
                "photographic reproduction of this most important MS
                has yet to appear…The student is still under the
                necessity of extracting the text of [Aleph] from the
                five works of Tischendorf." So, Lake is *permitted*
                to say things like "The discrimination of [scribe] D
                from A and B is easier and admits of no reasonable
                doubt" because without such assumptions, he feels he
                cannot write anything to anyone. In any case,
                so-called "Scribe D" is just what the letter means "a
                door," i.e., "a way out" of a conundrum. The same
                conundrum, I hasten to add, in which many still
                reside. Perhaps this says something about Lake’s
                understanding of academia enterprise?

                Second, turning to the manuscript itself, and in
                particular Mark 16:6, here in this one instance we
                have the Sacred Name spelled out for us. Why only
                here and not elsewhere? You have provided one
                explanation to that effect with the canceled-sheet
                theory and the postulation of Scribe D, who corrects
                the horrible mistake that Scribe A made in his copying
                of the last two (2) chapters of the gospel. But there
                is a problem: (1) The postulation of Scribe D is not
                demonstrable from the paleographical analysis of the
                script. In fact, its doubtful to say the least. To
                suppose, with Kirsopp Lake that "*possibly* the
                letters are more square" is the same as saying
                "possibly they are not." Indeed, possibly there is no
                variation at all. Next, (2) to argue that Scribe D
                replaced the last leaf of Mark and then tried, first
                to compact his writing, but then later, expand his
                writing when he saw he needed to fill space (and thus
                the uncontracted Name IHSOUN) is at the very most mere
                speculation, and at the least a trivialization of the
                scribe’s art and skill. If Scribe D was trying to
                fill space, why place TON NAZARHNON in the margins?
                Why not include it in the main text? Your argument is
                contradictory, and not only here but elsewhere as
                well. But wait, you say "However typical or
                non-typical the errors [sic] are, the scribal marks
                and the corrections alongside them are nothing
                special." The modern textual critic can only
                disregard the ancient textual apparatus to his own
                peril. You need to cast away any meaning to the
                scribe’s Obelus precisely because it means something
                that undercuts your hypothesis.

                To be sure, the variation in the number of characters
                per column is not enough to support the notion of a
                canceled sheet. We see this phenomenon elsewhere in
                Sinaiticus. Moreover, the Scribal Obelus at Mark 16:6
                indicates that TON NAZARHNON is worthy of *censure*
                and *removal* from the main text, which is precisely
                why it is in the margins! This is also why we see the
                Name of Jesus (IHSOUN) uncontracted, ie., for
                EMPHASIS! The uncontracted form of the Name supports
                the scribe’s use of the Obelus. In other words,
                inclusion of TON NAZARHNON violates the scribe’s
                fidelity to his own vocation, which is his fidelity to
                the Exemplar before him. It would only be on account
                of perhaps ecclesiastical pressure that Scribe ***A***
                would include it, yet here only in the margins. And
                we can support this hypothesis by looking at the other
                two instances of the Obelus in Mark (Mk. 4:19 and
                10:30), which in both instances clearly illustrate to
                us in a demonstrable way the precise function of the
                ancient text-critical sign. This too is completely
                consistent with the ancient Alexandian Grammarians and
                Aristarchus himself.

                To proceed one step further, takes us, of course, to
                the Codex Vaticanus. (Yet first, as an aside, Why must
                we rely upon Kirsopp Lake or Tischendorf for
                orthographic/itacistic matters? Can’t we see for
                ourselves?) In Vaticanus there is no Obelus at Mk
                4:19, 10:30, or 16:6. Why not? My suspicion (and I
                do plan to explore this further) is that the Scribe is
                saying something very important to his reader. He is
                obviously aware of B’s readings, indeed, seemingly
                seamless readings, hence the use of the Obelus.

                Sincerely,

                Webber Young.








                --- "James Snapp, Jr." <snapp@...> wrote:

                > Dear George Young:
                >
                > Kirsopp Lake DID state definitively that Scribe A
                > and Scribe D are
                > two different hands: "The discrimination of D from
                > A and B is easier
                > and admits of no reasonable doubt." What part of
                > "admits of no
                > reasonable doubt" are you interpreting to mean
                > "doubtful"???
                >
                > GY: "In other words, Scribe D is merely an
                > hypothesis to explain
                > other features connected to the text of Sinaiticus."
                >
                > No; the existence of Scribe D is a deduction drawn
                > directly from the
                > evidence, evidence which includes, as I've said, not
                > only the subtle
                > aesthetic differences which Lake mentioned but also
                > the accelerated
                > rates of letters-per-column, orthographic/itacistic
                > variation, and
                > the use of the diple-mark (to which could be added
                > differing
                > treatments of nomina sacra, and the lack of the
                > Eusebian Canons in
                > the cancel-sheets in Matthew, as I recall).
                >
                > GY: "In Mk 10:30, inserting the marginal note would
                > create a literal
                > repetition of several words"
                >
                > It would? How? (Btw, notice that the contents of
                > the correction in
                > Sinaiticus differs from the text of B here; B has
                > "mhteras" but
                > Aleph's corrector has "mhtera." This -- and the
                > hundreds of textual
                > differences not noted in the margins -- does not
                > bode well for the
                > idea that someone was putting B's readings into the
                > margins of
                > Sinaiticus.)
                >
                > GY: "Lastly, in Mk 16:6 there is again the issue of
                > repetition, yet
                > this time Scribe A spells it out for us - BUT ONLY
                > HERE."
                >
                > First, the scribe here isn't Scribe A; it's Scribe
                > D. Second,
                > there's no repetition involved here; the margin-note
                > consists of the
                > insertion of a skipped phrase.
                >
                > GY: "The uniqueness of the scribal mark in these
                > three instances in
                > which it occurs ***links them all together.***
                > These are not the
                > usual so-called "errors." If you look at 4:19 that
                > becomes plain, at
                > least to me."
                >
                > However typical or non-typical the errors are, the
                > marks and the
                > corrections alongside them are nothing special.
                > (Btw, in 4:19,
                > Aleph's reading after the margin-correction is taken
                > into account
                > disagrees with B; words are transposed. Again, this
                > does not readily
                > support the idea that the corrector was writing
                > material from
                > Vaticanus in the margins.)
                >
                > GY: "I feel that I have sufficiently shown that
                > this [the existence
                > of Scribe D] is hypothetical in nature, and an
                > hypothesis that even
                > Kirsopp Lake was not certain about."
                >
                > Hmm. Audience??
                >
                > GY: "Finally, the scribal note at 15:47, which is
                > evident in Lake's
                > facsimile but absent in Tischendorf's, is open to
                > question. Why did
                > Tischendorf omit it? Was it even there when
                > Tischendorf had the
                > codex?"
                >
                > My offhand guess is that Tischendorf discerned
                > (correctly or
                > incorrectly) that this note was added after the MS
                > left its
                > scriptorium, and his intention was to display the
                > state of the text
                > as it existed upon, but not after, its departure.
                >
                > Yours in Christ,
                >
                > James Snapp, Jr.
                > Curtisville Christian Church
                > Indiana (USA)
                > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                **************************************



                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • George Young
                Dear James Snapp/TC List: Concerning the marginal notes in Sinaiticus, I hold them with great interest. My understanding of the textual apparatus in Sinaiticus
                Message 7 of 7 , May 6, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear James Snapp/TC List:

                  Concerning the marginal notes in Sinaiticus, I hold
                  them with great interest.
                  My understanding of the textual apparatus in
                  Sinaiticus is that we can trace them back to the
                  critical signs first devised by Aristarchus of
                  Alexandria, who was the chief Grammarian at the
                  scribal school of Alexandria during the reign of
                  Philopater (222-205 BC). As you know, Sinaiticus
                  traces both its lineage and textual exemplar back
                  through to Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD). In his
                  own study of the Holy Scriptures, Origen adopted
                  several text-critical signs from his Alexandrian
                  educators. Two of these text-critical signs are first
                  the *Asterisk, which was an X with four dots placed
                  between the lines, and the second was the Obelus,
                  which was a line with two dotes placed on either side.
                  The - Asterisk - when placed in the manuscript
                  indicated a reading worthy of *special attention.*
                  The Obelus indicated a variant which the scribe judged
                  to be worthy of *censure* or *removal.* What we have
                  in the Gospel of Mark at 4:19, 10:30, and yes 16:6 is
                  an *OBELUS* (or, more correctly, a Metobelus which is
                  a more refined form of the Obelus drawn at a 45 degree
                  angle with two dotes placed mid-way up the line).

                  Now, returning to your assertion regarding Scribe D,
                  the Canceled-Sheet Theory, and so forth. First, I
                  reiterate that in my reading of Kirsopp Lake he did
                  not state definitivelythat Scribe D exists. As you
                  know, Tischendorf theorized that the
                  manuscript was the work of four (4) original scribes
                  (A,B,C,D). Kirsopp Lake maintained that scribe A wrote
                  all of the canonical NT, and theorized that scribe D
                  was the one responsible for some of the corrections
                  and *canceled-leaves.* Yet, with respect to scribe D,
                  Lake cannot help but *admit* that he CANNOT describe
                  who Scribe D is! He states: "...it [sic] is more
                  easily PERCEIVED than described." (p. xix) Again he
                  ponders, "POSSIBLY the letters are more square in D
                  than in A?" (p. xix) Still more, he wonders with
                  respect to scribe D, "Some of these corrections SEEM
                  REALLY TO BE IN THE SAME HAND as the text [i.e.,
                  Scribe A!]." (p. xxi) Still more doubts arise, "Some
                  [of D's corrections] very slightly...but so slightly
                  [from A] that they are clearly...made in the
                  scriptorium." (p. xxi) FINALLY, Kirsopp Lake must ask:
                  "Are they a different hand [i.e., Scribes A and D] or
                  not?" (p. xxi). No, they seem like the same hand to my
                  eyes. This sort of language indicates that Lake is,
                  as it were, "reasoning out loud."

                  But it would be unfair to Lake to supposed that he
                  cannot put forward some sort of argument. Shortly
                  after taking the photographs of Sinaiticus in St.
                  Petersburg in 1909, he obviously wanted to say
                  something to scholars! He felt compelled to provide
                  them with some argument with which to work. In other
                  words, he puts together an argument which at the time
                  seemed good to him and then offers it up to the
                  academic community. In the end, however, he simply
                  summarizes the relevant data concerning Sinaiticus,
                  and reiterates what Tischendorf said 50 years
                  earlier. Even H.B. Swete wasn’t all that impressed
                  with Lake’s arguments, nor with his facsimile. For
                  even after its publication, in 1914 Swete wrote that a
                  "photographic reproduction of this most important MS
                  has yet to appear…The student is still under the
                  necessity of extracting the text of [Aleph] from the
                  five works of Tischendorf." So, Lake is challenging
                  when he says things like "The discrimination of
                  [scribe] D from A and B is easier and admits of no
                  reasonable doubt..." because without such assumptions,
                  he feels he cannot put together a seemless argument.
                  In any case,
                  so-called "Scribe D" is just what the letter means "a
                  door," i.e., "a way out" of a conundrum.

                  Second, turning to the manuscript itself, and in
                  particular Mark 16:6, here in this one instance we
                  have the Sacred Name spelled out for us. Why only
                  here and not elsewhere? You have provided one
                  explanation to that effect with the canceled-sheet
                  theory and the postulation of Scribe D, who corrects
                  the horrible mistake that Scribe A made in his copying
                  of the last two (2) chapters of the gospel. But there
                  is a problem: (1) The postulation of Scribe D is not
                  demonstrable from the paleographical analysis of the
                  script. In fact, its doubtful to say the least. To
                  suppose, with Kirsopp Lake that "possibly* the
                  letters are more square" is the same as saying
                  "possibly they are not!" Indeed, possibly there is no
                  variation at all (I don't see any). Next, (2) to
                  argue that Scribe D
                  replaced the last leaf of Mark and then tried, first
                  to compact his writing, but then later, expand his
                  writing when he saw he needed to fill space (and thus
                  the uncontracted Name IHSOUN) is at the very most mere
                  speculation, and at the least a misunderstanding of
                  the
                  scribe’s art and skill. If Scribe D was trying to
                  fill space, why place TON NAZARHNON in the margins?
                  Why not include it in the main text? Your argument is
                  seems inconsistent, and not only here but elsewhere as
                  well. You say "However typical or
                  non-typical the errors [sic] are, the scribal marks
                  and the corrections alongside them are nothing
                  special." I suspect you don't really feel this way
                  about the marginal notes. There is no need to cast
                  away any meaning to the Scribe’s Obelus precisely
                  because it means something
                  that we don't understand.

                  To be sure, the variation in the number of characters
                  per column is not enough to support the notion of a
                  canceled sheet. ***We see this phenomenon elsewhere
                  in
                  Sinaiticus.***
                  Moreover, the Scribal Obelus at Mark 16:6
                  indicates that TON NAZARHNON is worthy of *censure*
                  and *removal* from the main text, which is precisely
                  why it is in the margins! This is also why we see the
                  Name of Jesus (IHSOUN) uncontracted, ie., for
                  EMPHASIS! The uncontracted form of the Name supports
                  the scribe’s use of the Obelus. In other words,
                  inclusion of TON NAZARHNON violates the scribe’s
                  fidelity to his own vocation, which is his fidelity to
                  the Exemplar before him. It would only be on account
                  of perhaps ecclesiastical pressure that Scribe ***A***
                  would include it, yet here only in the margins. And
                  we can support this hypothesis by looking at the other
                  two instances of the Obelus in Mark (Mk. 4:19 and
                  10:30), which in both instances clearly illustrate to
                  us in a demonstrable way the precise function of the
                  ancient text-critical sign. This too is completely
                  consistent with the ancient Alexandian Grammarians.

                  To proceed one step further, takes us, of course, to
                  the Codex Vaticanus (I will explain this further in my
                  next email - Recall, however, Where is it in Vaticanus
                  that we see an UNCONTRACTED instance of the Sacred
                  Name in Mark? It gets interesting!!!). In Vaticanus
                  there is no Obelus at Mk 4:19, 10:30, or 16:6. Why
                  not? My suspicion (and I do plan to explore this
                  further) is that the Scribe might be *exorcising* the
                  demons in his text.

                  Comments Welcome.


                  Sincerely,

                  Webber Young.



                  --- "James Snapp, Jr." <snapp@...> wrote:

                  > Dear George Young:
                  >
                  > Kirsopp Lake DID state definitively that Scribe A
                  > and Scribe D are
                  > two different hands: "The discrimination of D from
                  > A and B is easier
                  > and admits of no reasonable doubt." What part of
                  > "admits of no
                  > reasonable doubt" are you interpreting to mean
                  > "doubtful"???
                  >
                  > GY: "In other words, Scribe D is merely an
                  > hypothesis to explain
                  > other features connected to the text of Sinaiticus."
                  >
                  > No; the existence of Scribe D is a deduction drawn
                  > directly from the
                  > evidence, evidence which includes, as I've said, not
                  > only the subtle
                  > aesthetic differences which Lake mentioned but also
                  > the accelerated
                  > rates of letters-per-column, orthographic/itacistic
                  > variation, and
                  > the use of the diple-mark (to which could be added
                  > differing
                  > treatments of nomina sacra, and the lack of the
                  > Eusebian Canons in
                  > the cancel-sheets in Matthew, as I recall).
                  >
                  > GY: "In Mk 10:30, inserting the marginal note would
                  > create a literal
                  > repetition of several words"
                  >
                  > It would? How? (Btw, notice that the contents of
                  > the correction in
                  > Sinaiticus differs from the text of B here; B has
                  > "mhteras" but
                  > Aleph's corrector has "mhtera." This -- and the
                  > hundreds of textual
                  > differences not noted in the margins -- does not
                  > bode well for the
                  > idea that someone was putting B's readings into the
                  > margins of
                  > Sinaiticus.)
                  >
                  > GY: "Lastly, in Mk 16:6 there is again the issue of
                  > repetition, yet
                  > this time Scribe A spells it out for us - BUT ONLY
                  > HERE."
                  >
                  > First, the scribe here isn't Scribe A; it's Scribe
                  > D. Second,
                  > there's no repetition involved here; the margin-note
                  > consists of the
                  > insertion of a skipped phrase.
                  >
                  > GY: "The uniqueness of the scribal mark in these
                  > three instances in
                  > which it occurs ***links them all together.***
                  > These are not the
                  > usual so-called "errors." If you look at 4:19 that
                  > becomes plain, at
                  > least to me."
                  >
                  > However typical or non-typical the errors are, the
                  > marks and the
                  > corrections alongside them are nothing special.
                  > (Btw, in 4:19,
                  > Aleph's reading after the margin-correction is taken
                  > into account
                  > disagrees with B; words are transposed. Again, this
                  > does not readily
                  > support the idea that the corrector was writing
                  > material from
                  > Vaticanus in the margins.)
                  >
                  > GY: "I feel that I have sufficiently shown that
                  > this [the existence
                  > of Scribe D] is hypothetical in nature, and an
                  > hypothesis that even
                  > Kirsopp Lake was not certain about."
                  >
                  > Hmm. Audience??
                  >
                  > GY: "Finally, the scribal note at 15:47, which is
                  > evident in Lake's
                  > facsimile but absent in Tischendorf's, is open to
                  > question. Why did
                  > Tischendorf omit it? Was it even there when
                  > Tischendorf had the
                  > codex?"
                  >
                  > My offhand guess is that Tischendorf discerned
                  > (correctly or
                  > incorrectly) that this note was added after the MS
                  > left its
                  > scriptorium, and his intention was to display the
                  > state of the text
                  > as it existed upon, but not after, its departure.
                  >
                  > Yours in Christ,
                  >
                  > James Snapp, Jr.
                  > Curtisville Christian Church
                  > Indiana (USA)
                  > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  **************************************



                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.