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

Re: Sinaiticus' Scribes and TA DAIMONIA

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.