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

Re: Sinaiticus' Scribes and the Metobelus

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