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

Re: Cancel-Sheets in Aleph (Short Note)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Apr 30, 2006
      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 2 of 7 , May 1, 2006
        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 3 of 7 , May 1, 2006
          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 4 of 7 , May 2, 2006
            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 5 of 7 , May 6, 2006
              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.