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

List problems?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    I ve got two emails from list members that their messages did not show up on the list recently. I have no idea what happened. Please resent your lost messages
    Message 1 of 2 , May 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've got two emails from list members that their messages did not show up on
      the list recently.
      I have no idea what happened.
      Please resent your lost messages and inform me if they still do not show up.



      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      Dear George Young: Repeating your statement that K. Lake did not state definitively that Scribe D exists will not make it true. I have already provided the
      Message 2 of 2 , May 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear George Young:

        Repeating your statement that K. Lake did not state definitively that
        Scribe D exists will not make it true. I have already provided the
        explicit quotation in which he affirmed the distinct existence of
        Scribe D as a point beyond reasonable doubt. Whatever his thoughts
        were about the extent of Scribe D's work, they constitute a separate
        question (i.e., wondering how many corrections Scribe D made, and
        wondering if it was Scribe A or Scribe D who made a particular group
        of corrections, is not the same as wondering if Scribe D existed).

        GY: "No, they are the same hand."

        No they're not, and I have already directed you to the evidence that
        proves that they are not: the rate of characters-per-column in the
        cancel-sheet, the different treatments of the nomina sacra, D's use
        of the diple-mark, itacistic differences, and so forth. You have not
        addressed any of these points, except to say that the rate of
        characters-per-column varies elsewhere in Sinaiticus. More about
        that shortly.

        GY: . . . "In any case, so-called "Scribe D" is just what the letter
        means "a door," i.e., "a way out" of a conundrum."

        Ah. So although Lake firmly affirmed the existence of Scribe D and
        referred to him repeatedly as someone separate from Scribe A, that
        doesn't count, because Lake was writing in a code cleverly disguised
        as a vestige of Tischendorf's nomenclature. It all becomes clear now.

        GY: "Here in this one instance we have the Sacred Name spelled out
        for us. Why only here and not elsewhere?"

        I already told you: because here, the diorthotes had a unique motive
        to extend a text which would normally occupy less than one column so
        as to make it occupy two columns.

        GY: . . . 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."

        It is demonstrable, George. I am confident that you can prove it to
        yourself if you take the time to make an honest investigation: look
        at where the diple-mark is frequently used vs. where it is only
        rarely used. Look at where the same words occur but are presented
        with an extra E or I or with only one N. Look at where the number of
        words treated as nomina sacra is increased, and where it is less.
        Look at where the Eusebian Canons are, and where they aren't (in the
        cancel-sheets in Matthew). Then draw the logical conclusion.

        GY: "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."

        In no way is this contradictory; I already told you why TON NAZARHNON
        is missing from the text: the diorthotes (or his exemplar)
        accidentally skipped it.

        GY: "The modern textual critic can only disregard the ancient
        textual apparatus to his own peril."

        This feature in Mark 16:6 isn't an apparatus. It's a correction,
        plain and simple. The phrase "TON NAZARHNON" was accidentally
        skipped, and someone later noticed its absence and inserted it in the
        margin. The same feature is present elsewhere in Sinaiticus, for
        instance at Matthew 10:39 and at the end of 17:20 and in 19:20; in
        each case it fulfills the same purpose. The case of Matthew 17:20 is
        particularly instructive because there, the text in the margin
        consists of a long phrase -- a.k.a. 17:21 -- which is not in
        Vaticanus. In 19:20 the phrase "ek neothtos mou" is in the margin;
        this, too, is not in Vaticanus.

        The NA-27 apparatus, btw, identifies the margin-note at Matthew 19:20
        as having been made in about the seventh century. (The apparatus
        itself has the Aleph-letter accompanied by a superscripted "2" and
        this is explained on p. 48 of the English Introduction as a means of
        identifying a group of correctors "ca. 7th century.")

        GY: "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."

        Where? Please provide a few examples in Sinaiticus where we see
        three columns side-by-side, each with less than 610 letters (as we do
        in columns 7, 8, and 9 in the cancel-sheet), and a few examples in
        which we see three columns side-by-side, each with more than 680
        letters (as we do in columns 13, 14, and 15 in the cancel-sheet).

        GY: "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!"

        No; it simply means that a corrector used the ./. symbol to show what
        material should be inserted where.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Indiana (USA)
        www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.