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

Sinaiticus' Scribes and TA DAIMONIA

Expand Messages
  • George Young
    Dear TC List/James Snapp: For your convenience, there are images of the textual variants to which I have referred in my previous emails online at
    Message 1 of 3 , May 10, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear TC List/James Snapp:

      For your convenience, there are images of the textual
      variants to which I have referred in my previous
      emails online at

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

      These images show the use of the Asterisk and Obelus /
      Metobelus (Sinaiticus), as well as the Umlauts
      (Vaticanus).

      Sincerely,

      Webber Young.






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



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Ben Davidson
      Dear Mr. Young: I have taken a good look at your examples posted on geocities, and I am puzzled by your second example: Quote: In this second example taken
      Message 2 of 3 , May 12, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mr. Young: 
        I have taken a good look at your examples posted on geocities, and I am puzzled by your second example:
        Quote:
        "
        In this second example taken from Mark 16:6, the Metobelus is used in the classic sense of indicating a reading worthy of censure or removal. Take notice that the words "TON NAZAPHNON" are placed beside the Metobelus in the MARGINS.  A corresponding Metobelus is written in the main text indicating the place from which it was removed.
         
        It seems you have completely reversed the normal use and meaning of the obelisk here, and presumably the majority of times it appears in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  Surely the original scribe has inadvertently dropped a few words or a phrase/clause in all these cases (from homoeoteleuton or simple fatigue), and either himself (as first corrector) or some other proof-reader has caught the slip and restored the omission in the margin, - the easiest way to fix such blunders. 
         
        In this as in most other cases, the 'classic sense' is rather indicating a reading worth noting and replacing in the body of the next copy of the text. You can't possibly mean that the scribes would normally consciously excise a phrase or clause during their copying, then carefully place it in the margin to look like a correction or gloss, WHILE they are in the process of the 'first pass' or main text?!?
         
        And even if this were the case in a small number of manuscripts deliberately 'edited' by some master 'readings' collector like an Origen or a Eusebius, surely in all other cases and manuscripts the majority of such examples would indicate an accidental omission, and an attempted restoration by the proof-reader!...
         
        Just pondering your example,
        Eeyore


        George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
        Dear TC List/James Snapp:

        For your convenience, ...
        http://www.geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

        These images show the use of the Asterisk and Obelus /
        Metobelus (Sinaiticus), as well as the Umlauts
        (Vaticanus).

        Sincerely, Webber Young.


        How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

      • George Young
        Dear Mr. Scrivener: The use of the Asterisk and Obelus in Sinaiticus seems to me to touch on several larger issues. Let me begin my reply with a quote from
        Message 3 of 3 , May 13, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Mr. Scrivener:

          The use of the Asterisk and Obelus in Sinaiticus seems
          to me to touch on several larger issues. Let me begin
          my reply with a quote from H.B. Swete (Intro to the OT
          in Greek):

          "Here the genius of Origen found an ally in the system
          of critical signs which had its origin
          among the older scholars of Alexandria, dating almost
          from the century which produced the earlier
          books of the LXX. The Añéóôañ÷åéá ónìáôá took their
          name from the prince of Alexandrian grammarians,
          Aristarchus, who flourished in the reign of Philopator
          (222—205 B.C.), and they appear to have been first
          employed in connexion with his great edition of Homer.
          Origen selected two of these signs known as the obelus
          and the asterisk, and *adapted* them to the use of his
          edition of the Septuagint. In the Homeric poems, as
          edited by Aristarchus, the obelus marked passages
          which
          the critic wished to censure, while the asterisk was
          affixed to those which seemed to him to be
          worthy of special attention... As employed by Origen
          in the fifth column of the Hexapla, the obelus was
          prefixed to words or lines which were wanting in the
          Hebrew, and therefore, from Origen's point of view, of
          doubtful authority, whilst the asterisk called
          attention to words or lines wanting in the LXX., but
          present in the Hebrew. The close of the context to
          which the obelus or asterisk was intended to apply was
          marked by another sign known as the metobelus. When
          the passage exceeded the length of a single
          line, the asterisk or obelus was repeated at the
          beginning of each subsequent line until the metobelus
          was reached." (p.70)

          Now, the second example to which you refer (taken from
          Mark 16:6) we see a Metobelus. However, if you look
          at the uses of the Metobelus in Sinaiticus (both OT
          and NT), its use seems more in line with the ancient
          use of the OBELUS more than the Metobelus. In other
          words, the sign of the Metobelus appears to have taken
          on a similar meaning as the Obelus. The text to which
          the Metobelus signals in the margins is always in the
          margins. Furthermore, if incorporated into the main
          text, in many instances (taken verbatum) it creates a
          syntactical "Jam." In other words, a later scribe
          would have to "smooth out" the syntax to make it work.

          In Sinaiticus we also have marginal notes cramd
          alongside the main text. This does appear to me to be
          an "addition" to the main text. There is no critical
          sign placed beside such "notes," hence, they are
          intended to be viewed as either an "addition" or as a
          "correction."

          Still more, I know from my own thinking pattern that
          the tendency is to view all these marginal notes as
          "additions." That is, after all, as history makes
          plain, what happened. But my suspicion is that these
          early scribes were not so naieve. They too would have
          known that the tendency is "to add" and then "add so
          more" and then "add some more." So, I suppose that
          what I am proposing is that the scribes of Sinaiticus
          also removed, or perhaps did as we do: write variants
          in the margins. Why should they be any less
          innovative than ourselves? As for the timing of the
          marginal notes, I think that probably they would have
          written one sheet at a time, and then made the
          marginal notes.

          Sincerely,

          Webber Young.










          --- Ben Davidson <mr.scrivener@...> wrote:

          > Dear Mr. Young:
          > I have taken a good look at your examples posted
          > on geocities, and I am puzzled by your second
          > example:
          > Quote:
          > "
          > In this second example taken from Mark
          > 16:6, the Metobelus is used in the classic sense of
          > indicating a reading worthy of censure or removal.
          > Take notice that the words "TON NAZAPHNON" are
          > placed beside the Metobelus in the MARGINS. A
          > corresponding Metobelus is written in the main text
          > indicating the place from which it was removed.
          >
          > It seems you have completely reversed the normal
          > use and meaning of the obelisk here, and presumably
          > the majority of times it appears in Sinaiticus and
          > Vaticanus. Surely the original scribe has
          > inadvertently dropped a few words or a phrase/clause
          > in all these cases (from homoeoteleuton or simple
          > fatigue), and either himself (as first corrector) or
          > some other proof-reader has caught the slip and
          > restored the omission in the margin, - the easiest
          > way to fix such blunders.
          >
          > In this as in most other cases, the 'classic
          > sense' is rather indicating a reading worth noting
          > and replacing in the body of the next copy of the
          > text. You can't possibly mean that the scribes would
          > normally consciously excise a phrase or clause
          > during their copying, then carefully place it in the
          > margin to look like a correction or gloss, WHILE
          > they are in the process of the 'first pass' or main
          > text?!?
          >
          > And even if this were the case in a small number
          > of manuscripts deliberately 'edited' by some master
          > 'readings' collector like an Origen or a Eusebius,
          > surely in all other cases and manuscripts the
          > majority of such examples would indicate an
          > accidental omission, and an attempted restoration by
          > the proof-reader!...
          >
          > Just pondering your example,
          > Eeyore
          >
          >
          > George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
          > Dear TC List/James Snapp:
          >
          > For your convenience, ...
          > http://www.geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
          >
          > These images show the use of the Asterisk and Obelus
          > /
          > Metobelus (Sinaiticus), as well as the Umlauts
          > (Vaticanus).
          >
          > Sincerely, Webber Young.
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low
          > PC-to-Phone call rates.



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



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.