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

Re: Digging Deeper With Umlauts - Mark 14:22

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Nov 5, 2006
      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 2 of 8 , Nov 5, 2006
        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 3 of 8 , Nov 11, 2006
          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 4 of 8 , Nov 11, 2006
            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 5 of 8 , Nov 13, 2006
              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 6 of 8 , Nov 14, 2006
                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.