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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Sinaiticus' Scribes and TA DAIMONIA

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , May 7, 2006
      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 2 of 17 , May 8, 2006
        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 3 of 17 , May 10, 2006
          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 4 of 17 , May 13, 2006
            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 5 of 17 , May 14, 2006

              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 6 of 17 , May 14, 2006
                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 7 of 17 , May 16, 2006
                  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 8 of 17 , May 18, 2006
                    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 9 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                      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 10 of 17 , May 19, 2006
                        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 11 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                          "....[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 12 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                            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 13 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                              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 14 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                                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 15 of 17 , May 23, 2006
                                  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.