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

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

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: James Snapp, Jr. To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:45 AM Subject: [textualcriticism] Digging Deeper With Umlauts
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.