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

Re: [textualcriticism] Sinaiticus' Scribes and TA DAIMONIA

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , May 12, 2006
    • 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 2 of 3 , May 13, 2006
      • 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.