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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Cancel-Sheets in Aleph (Short Note)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , May 1 7:02 AM
    • 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 2 of 7 , May 1 7:11 PM
      • 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 3 of 7 , May 2 10:32 AM
        • 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 4 of 7 , May 6 6:02 AM
          • 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.