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

Digging Deeper With Umlauts - Mark 14:22

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    A while ago, in an essay which can be accessed at www.biblical- data.org , Gary Dykes wrote about the possible implications of umlauts in Vaticanus which
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      A while ago, in an essay which can be accessed at www.biblical-
      data.org , Gary Dykes wrote about the possible implications of
      umlauts in Vaticanus which appear at lines where the only known
      alternate reading occurs in the Byzantine Text. The main implication
      is that the copyist or diorthotes of B possessed another manuscript
      which contained Byzantine readings.

      In Mark 14:22, where the usual text is "KAI EIPEN AUTOUS LABETE TOUTO
      ESTIN," the main Alexandrian, "Western," and Caesarean witnesses
      agree (although D-Theta-565 insert "AUTOIS" after "EIPEN").

      The Byzantine Text has FAGETE after LABETE. And there's an umlaut
      here in Vaticanus. (I think. That's correct, right?)

      Witnesses for FAGETE include, according to Swanson, the Majority
      Text, 118, 124, 1346, f-13, 69, M, Gamma, 1582c, 2, 28, 157, 1071,
      and the Textus Receptus.

      Alexandrinus and Pi and K do *not* support FAGETE. Neither does the
      Peshitta.

      So: assuming that the umlaut was made because the umlautist saw the
      word FAGETE in a MS, should his MS be considered Proto-Byzantine? Or
      is it more likely that this unlaut is due to a random harmonization-
      reading that just happens to be absent from our earliest and best
      ("best" in the sense of "most distinct representative of its text-
      type) Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine witnesses?

      Just for casual consideration, let me put the question differently:
      suppose that B was made in Caesarea, using exemplars from Egypt, and
      that it was almost immediately taken to Constantinople, where the
      unlauts were added when B's owner compared B's text to the contents
      of his own MSS. Given this scenario, would it be reasonable to
      conclude that this particular umlaut indicates a reading which was
      extant in Constantinople and which was not extant, or at least not
      popular, anywhere else?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • sarban
      ... From: James Snapp, Jr. To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:45 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] Digging Deeper With Umlauts
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: James Snapp, Jr.

        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com

        Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:45 AM

        Subject: [textualcriticism] Digging Deeper With Umlauts - Mark 14:22

         

        A while ago, in an essay which can be accessed at www.biblical-
        data.org , Gary Dykes wrote about the possible implications of
        umlauts in Vaticanus which appear at lines where the only known
        alternate reading occurs in the Byzantine Text. The main implication
        is that the copyist or diorthotes of B possessed another manuscript
        which contained Byzantine readings.

        In Mark 14:22, where the usual text is "KAI EIPEN AUTOUS LABETE TOUTO
        ESTIN," the main Alexandrian, "Western," and Caesarean witnesses
        agree (although D-Theta-565 insert "AUTOIS" after "EIPEN").

        The Byzantine Text has FAGETE after LABETE. And there's an umlaut
        here in Vaticanus. (I think. That's correct, right?)


        Is it possible that the Umlaut refers to the Caesarean? reading
        with insertion of AUTOIS rather than to the Byzantine reading with
        insertion of FAGETE ?
         
        Andrew Criddle
      • James Snapp, Jr.
        Dr. Criddle, According to W. Willker s textual commentary, the umlaut is alongside a line in B which reads LABETE TOUTO ESTIN so it seems very probable that
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Dr. Criddle,

          According to W. Willker's textual commentary, the umlaut is alongside
          a line in B which reads

          LABETE TOUTO ESTIN

          so it seems very probable that the unlaut refers to the FAGETE
          variant. Since AUTOIS would go with KAI EIPEN, it would be logical
          to indicate a variant connected to KAI EIPEN by placing the umlaut
          alongside the line with KAI EIPEN, rather than alongside the
          following line.

          Of course there is no guarantee that the person who added the umlauts
          was always logical.

          I can't think of any instances in which an umlaut may indicate a
          variant that occurs as the first word of the immediately following
          line. Maybe some others here could check for such occurrences.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        • Daniel B. Wallace
          I would think that Jeff Miller would know. He did his master s thesis on this, which was turned into a fine piece for JSNT. Jeff, perhaps you can weigh in on
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I would think that Jeff Miller would know. He did his master's thesis on this, which was turned into a fine piece for JSNT. Jeff, perhaps you can weigh in on the discussion.

            Daniel B. Wallace
            Executive Director
            Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

            ----- Start Original Message -----
            Sent: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:34:03 -0000
            From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Digging Deeper With Umlauts - Mark 14:22

            > Dr. Criddle,
            >
            > According to W. Willker's textual commentary, the umlaut is alongside
            > a line in B which reads
            >
            > LABETE TOUTO ESTIN
            >
            > so it seems very probable that the unlaut refers to the FAGETE
            > variant. Since AUTOIS would go with KAI EIPEN, it would be logical
            > to indicate a variant connected to KAI EIPEN by placing the umlaut
            > alongside the line with KAI EIPEN, rather than alongside the
            > following line.
            >
            > Of course there is no guarantee that the person who added the umlauts
            > was always logical.
            >
            > I can't think of any instances in which an umlaut may indicate a
            > variant that occurs as the first word of the immediately following
            > line. Maybe some others here could check for such occurrences.
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > James Snapp, Jr.
            > Curtisville Christian Church
            > Indiana (USA)
            > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            ----- End Original Message -----
          • mark.thunderson
            ... One instance of this leaps to mind in Mark 1:24 OIDAMEN (Sinaiticus) vs. OIDA (Vaticanus). Here the umlaut precedes the textual variant and corresponds
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 11, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              James Snapp wrote:

              > I can't think of any instances in which an umlaut may indicate a
              > variant that occurs as the first word of the immediately following
              > line. Maybe some others here could check for such occurrences.

              One instance of this leaps to mind in Mark 1:24 OIDAMEN (Sinaiticus) vs. OIDA
              (Vaticanus). Here the umlaut precedes the textual variant and corresponds to your
              criterion. See also the unusual instance of SOI (Sinaiticus) vs. SOU (Vaticanus) in the same
              line. Textual smoothy, perhaps?

              Mark Thunderson.



              > According to W. Willker's textual commentary, the umlaut is alongside
              > a line in B which reads
              >
              > LABETE TOUTO ESTIN
              >
              > so it seems very probable that the unlaut refers to the FAGETE
              > variant. Since AUTOIS would go with KAI EIPEN, it would be logical
              > to indicate a variant connected to KAI EIPEN by placing the umlaut
              > alongside the line with KAI EIPEN, rather than alongside the
              > following line.
              >
              > Of course there is no guarantee that the person who added the umlauts
              > was always logical.
              >

              >
              > Yours in Christ,
              >
              > James Snapp, Jr.
              > Curtisville Christian Church
              > Indiana (USA)
              > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
              >
            • James Snapp, Jr.
              Mark Thunderson, Maybe. That adds some tentativeness. But, as I look at Swanson, it occurs to me that the evidence in Mk. 1:24 might itself be tenuous: how
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 11, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Thunderson,

                Maybe. That adds some tentativeness. But, as I look at Swanson, it
                occurs to me that the evidence in Mk. 1:24 might itself be tenuous:
                how do we know that the unlaut was not intended to indicate the
                transposition as displayed in C, or the addition of WDE as displayed
                in W?

                Does anyone know what percentage of umlaut-occurrances are capable of
                being identified with known transpositions?

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
              • Mark Thunderson
                Hello: With respect to the umlauts in Vaticanus, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the ink used is the same brownish ink as the main text prior to the
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 13, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello:

                  With respect to the umlauts in Vaticanus, I vaguely
                  remember reading somewhere that the ink used is the
                  same brownish ink as the main text prior to the
                  "refreshing" (which, again, if I remember correctly,
                  was done in the 12th century). Can anyone verify
                  that the ink used to place the umlauts is the same as
                  the main text of Vaticanus?

                  Mark Thunderson.



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                  http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  Mark Thunderson: Yes; the umlauts were made with the same apricot-colored ink that the text was written in. P. B. Payne goes into some detail to emphasize
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mark Thunderson:

                    Yes; the umlauts were made with the same apricot-colored ink that the
                    text was written in. P. B. Payne goes into some detail to emphasize
                    this point in the course of one of his essays about the umlauts,
                    which are accessible online at Wieland's page about Vaticanus.

                    Just because the umlauts and the text were written with the same kind
                    of ink does not force the conclusion that the umlauts and the text
                    were written by the same person, or even at the same place, though.
                    It may have been a commonplace ink at the time.

                    Does anyone know of any other MSS with apricot-tinted ink?

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.