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

Sinaiticus' Scribes and TA DAIMONIA

Expand Messages
  • George Young
    Dear TC List: I understand that the received theory on Sinaiticus Scribes is that first proposed my Tischendorf. If you have been following the debate between
    Message 1 of 17 , May 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear TC List:

      I understand that the received theory on Sinaiticus'
      Scribes is that first proposed my Tischendorf. If you
      have been following the debate between James Snapp and
      myself you will understand (at least in part) why I do
      not buy into this theory. It was never my intention
      to actually debate the existence of Scribe D nor the
      canceled sheet theory and so forth, however it was
      certainly enlightening and truly "a slice." Anyway,
      my *original* intention, which I scarecly had
      opportunity to elucidate, is this:

      In Mark 16:6 we see the uncontracted form of the
      Sacred Name. This is the only place in Mark where we
      find it. All other instances are rendered in the
      abbreviated form. If we as textual critics take
      seriously the ancient distinction between the Asterisk
      and the Obelus (the Asterisk meaning a reading worthy
      of special attention, and the Obelus meaning a reading
      worthy of censure or removal), then the Obelus at Mark
      16:6 is intriguing, to say the least. Furthermore,
      if we assume that the Scriptorium in which Sinaiticus
      was produced was populated with scribes who believed
      in Jesus and his teachings, then wouldn't it be
      reasonable to suppose that the corruption of the Holy
      Scripture would be considered demonic? And if this be
      true, then do you suppose that the use of the Obelus
      at Mark 16:6 might be the visible residue of an
      ancient "textual exorcism?" (BTW, if someone ascribes
      to Tischendorf's/Lake's theory of 4 scribes, you won't
      make it this far. The theory will hold you back).

      Still more, I found it interesting that in Vaticanus,
      I *think* that the only instance of the uncontracted
      form of the Sacred Name occurs at Mark 1:24, which, of
      course, is the episode of the exorcism of the demon in
      the synagoge at KAFARNAOUM. Interestingly enough,
      Jesus is addressed by the demon as "IHSOU NAZARHNE."
      In Vaticanus, there is also in the left margin two
      verticle dots (the Umlates), and in the right margin
      one dot, and between the dots the words "HLQES
      APOLESAI HMAS".

      My gut suspicion is that maybe the two are linked.
      What do you think? One last comment: Tischendorf did
      make a link between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but
      Tischendorf's argument for the link between the two
      MSS seemed ridiculous to most scholars, especially to
      K. Lake (you can read about it in Lake's Introduction
      to his facsimile). What did he see?

      Sincerely,

      Webber Young.


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



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • mr.scrivener
      ... Where can one get more information on the history of these marks and something solid on their interpretation (and possible historical misinterpretation)?
      Message 2 of 17 , May 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George Young
        <webber_young@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear TC List:
        >
        ...
        > In Mark 16:6 we see the uncontracted form of the
        > Sacred Name. This is the only place in Mark where we
        > find it. All other instances are rendered in the
        > abbreviated form. If we as textual critics take
        > seriously the ancient distinction between the Asterisk
        > and the Obelus (the Asterisk meaning a reading worthy
        > of special attention, and the Obelus meaning a reading
        > worthy of censure or removal), then the Obelus at Mark
        > 16:6 is intriguing, to say the least.

        Where can one get more information on the history of these marks and
        something solid on their interpretation (and possible historical
        misinterpretation)?

        So much seems to be riding upon both a correct and detailed knowledge
        of the use of these marks, and also a knowledge of the history and
        extent of their use (and any confusion of their meaning).

        It seems a scandal that there isn't an exhaustive work on these from
        a conservative viewpoint, by someone such as Hoskier, or Colwell.

        Also, where can one find out more about the more recent disagreements
        and contention about these marks in various specific cases
        among 'modern critics'?

        Finally, is there a good article on the use of Sacred Name
        contractions among the papyrii and Uncials that could bring one up to
        speed on the layout of the land here?


        > Still more, I found it interesting that in Vaticanus,
        > I *think* that the only instance of the uncontracted
        > form of the Sacred Name occurs at Mark 1:24, which, of
        > course, is the episode of the exorcism of the demon in
        > the synagoge at KAFARNAOUM. Interestingly enough,
        > Jesus is addressed by the demon as "IHSOU NAZARHNE."
        > In Vaticanus, there is also in the left margin two
        > verticle dots (the Umlates), and in the right margin
        > one dot, and between the dots the words "HLQES
        > APOLESAI HMAS".
        >

        This seems unclear as it stands. Do you mean the phrase appears
        across the column? or in one margin or the other?
        Can you post or make available a good facsimile of this page?


        > My gut suspicion is that maybe the two are linked.
        > What do you think? One last comment: Tischendorf did
        > make a link between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but
        > Tischendorf's argument for the link between the two
        > MSS seemed ridiculous to most scholars, especially to
        > K. Lake (you can read about it in Lake's Introduction
        > to his facsimile). What did he see?
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Webber Young.
        >
        >

        Is this online?


        Desperately trying to follow...
        Eeyore
      • George Young
        Dear Eeyore: ... You can download for free in pdf format, H.B. Swete s _An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ at
        Message 3 of 17 , May 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Eeyore:

          You wrote:
          > Where can one get more information on the history of
          > these marks and
          > something solid on their interpretation (and
          > possible historical
          > misinterpretation)?

          You can download for free in pdf format, H.B. Swete's
          _An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ at

          http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.html

          In this introduction Swete provides an excellent
          discussion of the critical marks (e.g., Asterisk and
          Obelus) in several ancient manuscripts with extended
          examples. Its absolutely excellent! He also provides
          a detailed synopsis of many of the most important MSS.


          > So much seems to be riding upon both a correct and
          > detailed knowledge
          > of the use of these marks, and also a knowledge of
          > the history and
          > extent of their use (and any confusion of their
          > meaning).

          I agree.

          > It seems a scandal that there isn't an exhaustive
          > work on these from
          > a conservative viewpoint, by someone such as
          > Hoskier, or Colwell.

          I think the reasons are varied, but certainly the lack
          of access to the MSS until recently has prohibited any
          study of the critical marks used by the ancient
          scribes. But that era of censurship is over.

          > Also, where can one find out more about the more
          > recent disagreements
          > and contention about these marks in various specific
          > cases
          > among 'modern critics'?

          I have no idea. Although, sometimes I fear
          contamination.

          > Finally, is there a good article on the use of
          > Sacred Name
          > contractions among the papyrii and Uncials that
          > could bring one up to
          > speed on the layout of the land here?

          I have no idea.

          re: the Umlates...
          > This seems unclear as it stands. Do you mean the
          > phrase appears
          > across the column? or in one margin or the other?
          > Can you post or make available a good facsimile of
          > this page?

          I refer you to the email I sent off line.

          Sincerely,

          Webber Young.


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



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • James Snapp, Jr.
          Dear George Young: The most popular analysis of Sinaiticus scribes is the one by Milne & Skeat, which I mentioned earlier. GY: If we as textual critics take
          Message 4 of 17 , May 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear George Young:

            The most popular analysis of Sinaiticus' scribes is the one by Milne
            & Skeat, which I mentioned earlier.

            GY: "If we as textual critics take seriously the ancient distinction
            between the Asterisk and the Obelus (the Asterisk meaning a reading
            worthy of special attention, and the Obelus meaning a reading worthy
            of censure or removal), then the Obelus at Mark 16:6 is intriguing,
            to say the least."

            When one observes that at Mark 16:6 a metobelus is both in the
            margin, and in the text where the missing phrase belongs, it's
            obvious that the metobelus is being used in a capacity beyond what an
            obelus meant in the Hexapla. This is even more obvious when we
            consider the instances in Matthew where the metobelus is used.

            GY: … "Do you suppose that the use of the Obelus at Mark 16:6 might
            be the visible residue of an ancient "textual exorcism?""

            Not by any stretch of the imagination. The metobelus is used there
            as a simple correction-mark. The same use of the same mark is made
            in Vaticanus, too, btw -- for instance in Matthew 25:40, where the
            phrase "adelfwn mou twn" is missing in the text (due to
            parablepsis). The notion of a "textual exorcism" doesn't work very
            well there.

            It is interesting that in Mark 1:24, IHSOU is uncontracted in B. But
            that's about all it is.

            GY: "In Vaticanus, there is also in the left margin two verticle
            dots (the Umlates), and in the right margin one dot, and between the
            dots the words "HLQESAPOLESAI HMAS"."

            Are you saying that the umlauts and dot are arranged like the
            following?

            SU IHSOU NAZARHNE HL
            .. QES APOLECAI HMAS OI .
            DA SE TIS EI O AGIOS TOU
            _QU_ KAI EPETEIMHSEN AU

            If so, that looks like it may concern something else (maybe the
            transposition that is in W and C; and/or the insertion of WDE as
            attested in W; B and W both read SU earlier in 1:24 rather than SOI).

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Elwood, Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
          • Benjamin Pehrson
            I m just beginning to read whatever I can find on Gerd Mink s Coherence-Based Genealogical Method used in the production of the ECM volumes. Can anyone give an
            Message 5 of 17 , May 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm just beginning to read whatever I can find on Gerd Mink's
              Coherence-Based Genealogical Method used in the production of the ECM
              volumes. Can anyone give an explanation for how a manuscript like 2805 in
              James can be located 8 levels removed (A-307-468-424-617-319-5-2464-2805)
              from the hypothetical A text (initial text) in the "predominant textual
              flow" (Figure 16 on p. 47 of Mink's "Problems of a highly contaminated
              tradition" in Stemmatology II, 2004) but also have the A text as a potential
              ancestor at a secondary level (ECM Installment 2 on the Letters of Peter,
              p.23)?

              Perhaps this statement on p. 29 of the ECM Installment 3 on 1 John is
              helpful:
              "But it must be remembered that A may be counted among the close potential
              ancestors of a witness, even though the number of agreements may be
              relatively small, if the witness has very few if any other close relative
              qualifying as a potential ancestor." So if the agreements are relatively
              small, why would A be considered among the close potential ancestors? Can it
              mean anything for tracing the history of the text if the A text is the
              closest potential ancestor even though it is not actually close?

              Thanks,
              Ben
            • George Young
              Dear James Snapp: ... Not really. My gut feeling is that some contemporary textual critics ignore the critical signs in the ancient MSS saying, they are all
              Message 6 of 17 , May 13, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear James Snapp:

                You wrote:

                > When one observes that at Mark 16:6 a metobelus is
                > both in the
                > margin, and in the text where the missing phrase
                > belongs, it's
                > obvious that the metobelus is being used in a
                > capacity beyond what an
                > obelus meant in the Hexapla. This is even more
                > obvious when we
                > consider the instances in Matthew where the
                > metobelus is used.

                Not really. My gut feeling is that some contemporary
                textual critics ignore the critical signs in the
                ancient MSS saying, "they are all additions anyway."

                > The same use of the [obelus]
                > mark is made
                > in Vaticanus, too, btw -- for instance in Matthew
                > 25:40, where the
                > phrase "adelfwn mou twn" is missing in the text (due
                > to
                > parablepsis). The notion of a "textual exorcism"
                > doesn't work very
                > well there.

                Actually, I had a look at the place in Matthew, but
                I'm not convinced that its a Metobelus. Compare the
                Metobelus seen at the home page for textual criticism:

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                Here you will see a good example of the Metobelus in
                Vaticanus.

                > It is interesting that in Mark 1:24, IHSOU is
                > uncontracted in B. But
                > that's about all it is.

                I reiterate what was said by another on this list that
                its too bad there is no scholarship on this
                phenomenon.

                > In Vaticanus, there is also in the left margin
                > two verticle
                > dots (the Umlates), and in the right margin one dot,
                > and between the
                > dots the words "HLQESAPOLESAI HMAS".

                What links both instances of the uncontracted form of
                the Sacred Name in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is the
                name NAZARHNOS. Furthermore, in the Gospel of Mark it
                appears as though only the *enemies of Jesus* call him
                by this name.

                One other thing. To answer your question about the
                dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
                them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
                the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text that
                has more than one reading. I have provided three
                examples of this phenomenon at:

                http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                Thank you for your comments.

                Sincerely,

                Webber Young.


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



                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • gfsomsel@juno.com
                I was looking at your three examples and had the thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd examples
                Message 7 of 17 , May 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment

                  I was looking at your three examples and had the thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a similar purpose to our hyphen.  In the 2nd and 3rd examples this seems quite logical

                  2.  XITW-

                  NA

                  3. KATE-

                  KRINAN

                  This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for example 1.  There could probably be no confusion regarding the association here

                  1. KAI OYESQE TON-

                  hUION TOU ANQRWPOU

                  Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.


                  george
                  gfsomsel
                  _________

                  -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:

                  One other thing.  To answer your question about the
                  dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
                  them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
                  the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text that
                  has more than one reading.  I have provided three
                  examples of this phenomenon at:

                  http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                  Thank you for your comments.

                  Sincerely,

                  Webber Young.

                   

                • George Young
                  Dear George: It seems to me there are several possibilities, including some association to our hyphen. However, my initial take on the dimple marks is as
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear George:

                    It seems to me there are several possibilities,
                    including some association to our hyphen. However, my
                    initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:

                    1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
                    the asterisk.

                    2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
                    same way as the metobelus.

                    3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
                    lines among which it is placed.

                    4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
                    manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
                    is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
                    lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
                    meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
                    out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
                    or some combination between the two.

                    5. If the previous point carries any probability,
                    then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
                    a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
                    correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
                    more meaning from the line(s).

                    I have looked at several of the other instances in the
                    Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
                    phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
                    more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
                    working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:


                    http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                    Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
                    have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
                    mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
                    further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
                    further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
                    form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
                    of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
                    Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
                    upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
                    speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
                    I would greatly welcome.

                    Sincerely,

                    Webber Young.



                    --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

                    > I was looking at your three examples and had the
                    > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
                    > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
                    > examples this seems quite logical
                    > 2. XITW-
                    > NA
                    > 3. KATE-
                    > KRINAN
                    > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
                    > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
                    > regarding the association here
                    > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
                    > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
                    > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
                    >
                    >
                    > george
                    > gfsomsel
                    > _________
                    >
                    > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > One other thing. To answer your question about the
                    > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
                    > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
                    > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
                    > that
                    > has more than one reading. I have provided three
                    > examples of this phenomenon at:
                    >
                    > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                    >
                    > Thank you for your comments.
                    >
                    > Sincerely,
                    >
                    > Webber Young.
                    >
                    >



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



                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • James Snapp, Jr.
                    Dear George Y., The arrowhead-mark is usually called diple, not dimple. The can serve a couple of purposes: (a) to fill space. This is how the
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear George Y.,

                      The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not "dimple."

                      The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:

                      (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of Aleph used it.

                      (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the OT. (In this
                      capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so as to enclose both
                      sides of a column.)

                      If you consider how the > is consistently used by the diorthotes of
                      Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which explains its
                      presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it should be clear
                      that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a space-filler. And that's
                      that.

                      This does raise an interesting question, though: why would a
                      diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill space? Here we may
                      be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is that this diorthotes
                      had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the scribe had left
                      blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a "corrector" had added
                      embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent that sort of
                      thing.

                      Yours in Christ,

                      James Snapp, Jr.
                      Curtisville Christian Church
                      Elwood, Indiana (USA)
                      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                    • George F. Somsel
                      Webber, It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously rather than speculating regarding the use of the dipple mark. Here is what little
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 18, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Webber,

                        It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously
                        rather than speculating regarding the use of the "dipple" mark. Here
                        is what little he has to say on the subject. I imagine it should be
                        verified though I should think he knew whereof he spoke.

                        " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere Testamento citantur"

                        It would be advisable therefore to see if in each case an OT
                        quotation is marked by this.

                        george
                        gfsomsel
                        _________

                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George Young
                        <webber_young@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear George:
                        >
                        > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
                        > including some association to our hyphen. However, my
                        > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
                        >
                        > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
                        > the asterisk.
                        >
                        > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
                        > same way as the metobelus.
                        >
                        > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
                        > lines among which it is placed.
                        >
                        > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
                        > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
                        > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
                        > lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
                        > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
                        > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
                        > or some combination between the two.
                        >
                        > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
                        > then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
                        > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
                        > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
                        > more meaning from the line(s).
                        >
                        > I have looked at several of the other instances in the
                        > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
                        > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
                        > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
                        > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:
                        >
                        >
                        > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                        >
                        > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
                        > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
                        > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
                        > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
                        > further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
                        > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
                        > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
                        > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
                        > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
                        > speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
                        > I would greatly welcome.
                        >
                        > Sincerely,
                        >
                        > Webber Young.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
                        > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
                        > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
                        > > examples this seems quite logical
                        > > 2. XITW-
                        > > NA
                        > > 3. KATE-
                        > > KRINAN
                        > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
                        > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
                        > > regarding the association here
                        > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
                        > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
                        > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > george
                        > > gfsomsel
                        > > _________
                        > >
                        > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > One other thing. To answer your question about the
                        > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
                        > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
                        > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
                        > > that
                        > > has more than one reading. I have provided three
                        > > examples of this phenomenon at:
                        > >
                        > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                        > >
                        > > Thank you for your comments.
                        > >
                        > > Sincerely,
                        > >
                        > > Webber Young.
                        > >
                        > >
                      • George Young
                        Dear James Snapp: I was unaware that diple was the scholarly term used for these strange marks. Critical terms are important and do carry and convey meaning
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear James Snapp:

                          I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
                          for these strange marks. Critical terms are important
                          and do carry and convey meaning in debate. However, I
                          am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                          following reasons:

                          1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                          English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                          root.

                          2. However, the word "dimple" does exist is the
                          English language and we know what it means.

                          3. Moreover, Codex Sinaiticus was written upon
                          *skins* of Antelopes, hence *dimple* seems more
                          appropriate because, not only do they looks like
                          dimples, but dimples appear upon the surface of the
                          skin. Moreover, they are features that are usually
                          admired by others.

                          With respect to the use of the dimple sign in the
                          Gospel of Mark and elsewhere, filling space does not
                          seem to explain the use of the sign. Indeed, the more
                          I look at its use in the trial, crucifixion and
                          resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark, the more I
                          am intrigued by its appearance (ch.14ff). Observe, for
                          instance, that the dimple sign appears 60 times in
                          this section of the Gospel. Previously I had given
                          examples of how the sign might indicate anagrams in
                          the line(s) to which it is placed.

                          However, perhaps I need to back up for a moment in my
                          discussion. One needs to acknowledge the *culture* of
                          Sinaiticus' Scribes in order to fully appreciate how
                          they viewed their own vocation and work to which they
                          applied themselves. In other words, the vellum, the
                          page, the leaves of the codex were viewed as sacred
                          space, upon which the scribe would write the Sacred
                          Signs, the Hieroglyphic Message. That the text of the
                          Gospel is more than linear is evident from the many
                          logograms throughout Sinaiticus. Even more
                          interesting, though, is the fact that logograms
                          (pictograms?), even the face of the text itself at
                          times conveys/corresponds to the Message. See for
                          example the image at:

                          http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                          The Scribes would have probably seen themselves at
                          part of a much older lineage, perhaps even associating
                          themselves with the "Wisemen," the MAGOI of old.
                          Hence, they would have acquired various signs and
                          symbols that meant something to them, but to us they
                          are hieroglyphic - they are hard to read and
                          understand. Furthermore, it is helpful to keep in
                          mind too that when this document was written it comes
                          at the end of a long line of martyrs (ca. 250 years).
                          Secret signs, symbols and so forth were a part of this
                          early Christian culture. We see evidence of this in
                          Sinaiticus.

                          Still more, the fidelity to the ancient Scripture, and
                          in the case of the ending chapters of Mark, is of
                          utmost importance to the scribe. For example, have
                          you noticed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
                          end ***exactly*** the same way? Have you noticed that
                          many lines in both codices end exactly the same, some
                          of which have a dimple mark? The discussion spills
                          over into many areas, but I point this out simply to
                          indicate that the Scribe would have know the original
                          ending, how it ended and the cues that would indicate
                          the original ending. Using four columns to write the
                          Holy Text allows the Scribe to manipulate the text in
                          a way that would *draw,* not only an authoritative
                          ending, but a text where *medium* and *message* cross
                          paths.

                          Sincerely,

                          Webber Young.


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

                          > Dear George Y.,
                          >
                          > The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not
                          > "dimple."
                          >
                          > The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:
                          >
                          > (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of
                          > Aleph used it.
                          >
                          > (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the
                          > OT. (In this
                          > capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so
                          > as to enclose both
                          > sides of a column.)
                          >
                          > If you consider how the > is consistently used by
                          > the diorthotes of
                          > Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which
                          > explains its
                          > presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it
                          > should be clear
                          > that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a
                          > space-filler. And that's
                          > that.
                          >
                          > This does raise an interesting question, though:
                          > why would a
                          > diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill
                          > space? Here we may
                          > be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is
                          > that this diorthotes
                          > had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the
                          > scribe had left
                          > blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a
                          > "corrector" had added
                          > embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent
                          > that sort of
                          > thing.
                          >
                          > Yours in Christ,
                          >
                          > James Snapp, Jr.
                          > Curtisville Christian Church
                          > Elwood, 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 George: The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear George:

                            The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed
                            out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In
                            his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what appears to
                            him to have been its function in the manuscript.
                            Interestingly enough, he does (in a footnote) mention
                            its association with the "T" (p. 8*, note #1). In
                            other words, the letter T and the > sign seem to
                            function at times, or be associated with, anagrams
                            and/or logograms, and/or pictograms. *See the example
                            I provide at

                            http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

                            as well as my reply to James Snapp re: Dimples.

                            However, I am suspicious that content and context,
                            message and medium are at play here in the scribes
                            mind. The Dimple Sign may have its origin in some
                            other set of signs besides the Greek alphabet. It has
                            correlations withg other Near Eastern scripts. A
                            close up of the sign suggests that it must be written
                            with one, maybe two strokes of the stylus. I am still
                            analyzing the mark and gathering information. I will
                            have more to say later. But it is also interesting to
                            observe that a similar sign is used in the margins of
                            Codex Alexandrinus, although being a different scribe
                            and a different codex and a different time might
                            render this observation unfruitful.

                            Thank you for your comments.

                            Sincerely,

                            Webber Young



                            --- "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

                            > Webber,
                            >
                            > It might have been wiser if I had consulted
                            > Tischendorf previously
                            > rather than speculating regarding the use of the
                            > "dipple" mark. Here
                            > is what little he has to say on the subject. I
                            > imagine it should be
                            > verified though I should think he knew whereof he
                            > spoke.
                            >
                            > " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere
                            > Testamento citantur"
                            >
                            > It would be advisable therefore to see if in each
                            > case an OT
                            > quotation is marked by this.
                            >
                            > george
                            > gfsomsel
                            > _________
                            >
                            > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George
                            > Young
                            > <webber_young@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Dear George:
                            > >
                            > > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
                            > > including some association to our hyphen.
                            > However, my
                            > > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
                            > >
                            > > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way
                            > as
                            > > the asterisk.
                            > >
                            > > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
                            > > same way as the metobelus.
                            > >
                            > > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line
                            > or
                            > > lines among which it is placed.
                            > >
                            > > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
                            > > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple
                            > mark
                            > > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
                            > > lining up the characters in such a way as to
                            > "inflect"
                            > > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being
                            > read
                            > > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being
                            > read),
                            > > or some combination between the two.
                            > >
                            > > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
                            > > then the dimple mark might be understood as either
                            > (a)
                            > > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
                            > > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to
                            > seek
                            > > more meaning from the line(s).
                            > >
                            > > I have looked at several of the other instances in
                            > the
                            > > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
                            > > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs.
                            > Still
                            > > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
                            > > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image
                            > at:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                            > >
                            > > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe
                            > would
                            > > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
                            > > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to
                            > invite
                            > > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
                            > > further meaning one must read "the son" in
                            > contracted
                            > > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks
                            > is,
                            > > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and
                            > resurrection of
                            > > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
                            > > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
                            > > speculation you might have regarding the dimple
                            > marks
                            > > I would greatly welcome.
                            > >
                            > > Sincerely,
                            > >
                            > > Webber Young.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
                            > > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
                            > > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and
                            > 3rd
                            > > > examples this seems quite logical
                            > > > 2. XITW-
                            > > > NA
                            > > > 3. KATE-
                            > > > KRINAN
                            > > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way
                            > for
                            > > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
                            > > > regarding the association here
                            > > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
                            > > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
                            > > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with
                            > hUION.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > george
                            > > > gfsomsel
                            > > > _________
                            > > >
                            > > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > One other thing. To answer your question about
                            > the
                            > > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have
                            > looked at
                            > > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is
                            > that
                            > > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of
                            > text
                            > > > that
                            > > > has more than one reading. I have provided
                            > three
                            > > > examples of this phenomenon at:
                            > > >
                            > > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
                            > > >
                            > > > Thank you for your comments.
                            > > >
                            > > > Sincerely,
                            > > >
                            > > > Webber Young.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >



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



                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • Bob Dietel
                            ....[13] * Diple*. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum.
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              "....[13] > Diple. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum. [14] ·> Diple peri sticon. Hanc pri[m]us Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad separationem Olympi a caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum geminis punctis. Hanc antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius non recte adiecerat, aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri ea usi sunt. [16] »- Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in comoediis vel tragoediis periodos. [17] Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens strophe et antistrophus infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur quae ad aliquid respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."

                              -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiarum libri XX


                              George Young wrote:
                              Dear James Snapp:
                              
                              I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
                              for these strange marks.  Critical terms are important
                              and do carry and convey meaning in debate.  However, I
                              am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                              following reasons:
                              
                              1.  The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                              English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                              root.
                              [snip]
                              
                                 --Bob Dietel
                              
                                 --dietelb@...
                               
                                 --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                                    -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island, WA
                                    -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington, WA
                                    -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church, Rockport, WA
                              
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              ... The word diple is found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and its Greek root is DIPLOUS. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                                >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                                >English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                                >root.

                                The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English Dictionary,
                                and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.

                                Stephen Carlson

                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                              • George Young
                                How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist! Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                                Message 15 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                                  Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                                  not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                                  that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                                  is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.

                                  Sincerely,

                                  Webber Young.

                                  --- "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                                  wrote:

                                  > At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                                  > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                                  > the
                                  > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                                  > Greek
                                  > >root.
                                  >
                                  > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                                  > Dictionary,
                                  > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                                  >
                                  > Stephen Carlson
                                  >
                                  > --
                                  > Stephen C. Carlson
                                  > mailto:scarlson@...
                                  > Weblog:
                                  > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                  > Author of: The Gospel Hoax,
                                  > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >



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



                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                                • George Young
                                  Dear Bob: Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis. Very helpful, indeed. I take it that diple in this instance is a loan word taken over into
                                  Message 16 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Bob:

                                    Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis.
                                    Very helpful, indeed. I take it that "diple" in this
                                    instance is a loan word taken over into Latin via its
                                    Greek origins. I find it very interesting that the
                                    diple is associated with other text-critical signs.

                                    Thank you for your comments,

                                    Webber Young.


                                    --- Bob Dietel <dietelb@...> wrote:

                                    > "....[13] [14] ·> Diple peri sticon.
                                    > Hanc pri[m]us
                                    > Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad
                                    > separationem Olympi a
                                    > caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum
                                    > geminis punctis. Hanc
                                    > antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius
                                    > non recte adiecerat,
                                    > aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri
                                    > ea usi sunt. [16] »-
                                    > Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in
                                    > comoediis vel tragoediis
                                    > periodos. [17] -« Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens
                                    > strophe et antistrophus
                                    > infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur
                                    > quae ad aliquid
                                    > respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."
                                    >
                                    > -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis,
                                    > /Etymologiarum
                                    > /libri XX
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > George Young wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >Dear James Snapp:
                                    > >
                                    > >I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term
                                    > used
                                    > >for these strange marks. Critical terms are
                                    > important
                                    > >and do carry and convey meaning in debate.
                                    > However, I
                                    > >am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                                    > >following reasons:
                                    > >
                                    > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                                    > the
                                    > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                                    > Greek
                                    > >root.
                                    > >
                                    > [snip]
                                    >
                                    > --Bob Dietel
                                    >
                                    > --dietelb@...
                                    >
                                    > --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                                    > -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island,
                                    > WA
                                    > -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington,
                                    > WA
                                    > -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church,
                                    > Rockport, WA
                                    >
                                    >



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



                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                                  • mydogregae01
                                    The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects) used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to indicate a new
                                    Message 17 of 17 , May 23, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects)
                                      used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to
                                      indicate a new speaker (actor). (per LSJ dict.)

                                      In the Greek the primary word is DIPLH

                                      and our translateration as "diple", is about as close as you can get.
                                      The DI- prefix indicates "double" as Carlson shared (OED). It refers
                                      to the form of the mark, it has TWO equal parts, two arms or branches
                                      emanating from a central point. Similar to >-.

                                      As time passed, the Byzantine and Alexandrian scribes used it for
                                      indicating quotes, and this is its typical use in most Biblical
                                      minuscule manuscripts. Calling or renaming it to "DIMPLE" (or
                                      whatever) is not at all justified.
                                      Mr. Gary S. Dykes
                                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                      Gary S. Dykes
                                      > How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                                      > Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                                      > not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                                      > that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                                      > is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                                      > > Dictionary,
                                      > > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                                      > >
                                      > > Stephen Carlson
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.