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

Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

Expand Messages
  • David Robert Palmer
    Hello Peter Head, Thank-you for pointing us to the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool. I have started using it to refine my Revelation variants footnote
    Message 1 of 21 , May 17, 2007
       
      Hello Peter Head,
       
      Thank-you for pointing us to the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool.  I have started using it to refine my Revelation variants footnote apparatus with respect to papyrus fragments not indicated in the NA27 and UBS apparatuses.
       
      But I wonder if you or anyone else on this list can help me solve a seeming discrepancy v v. that site and the NA27, UBS3, and Hoskier apparatuses.  Perhaps I am not understanding the Muenster page correctly.
       
      I was compiling the textual variants for PHAPMAKWN in Rev. 9:21, since it causes a split among the Greek New Testament editions, i.e, NA27 and Hodges/Farstad set against TR and Robinson.
       
      The Muenster page here:
       
      indicates that Codex Sinaiticus, (01), omits the phrase containing PHAPMAKWN.  However, I can see the word PHAPMAKWN present myself on the online image at the below link.  It is located in the 3rd column, 15th line up from the bottom, and the last word on the line.
       
       
      Could they be saying that the ORIGINAL hand ommitted the phrase?
       
      Interestingly, much of the same phrase is omitted by MSS 627 and 1828, and also the Italics ar and z, and also one Sahidic Coptic ms, and also Armenian no. 2, Cyprian, and Tyconius No. 1.  (MS. 1828 does add the phrase at the end.)
       
      Thank-you for any helpful input.
       
      David Robert Palmer
    • Peter M. Head
      As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates
      Message 2 of 21 , May 18, 2007
        As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates to a different word in that string: PORNIAS which is clearly a correction from the original PONHRIAS (as signalled in NA27).

        So I don't see any discrepancy here. You are right that the scanned photo of the facsimile shows FARMAKWN.

        Peter

        At 20:49 17/05/2007, you wrote:
         
        Hello Peter Head,
         
        Thank-you for pointing us to the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool.  I have started using it to refine my Revelation variants footnote apparatus with respect to papyrus fragments not indicated in the NA27 and UBS apparatuses.
         
        But I wonder if you or anyone else on this list can help me solve a seeming discrepancy v v. that site and the NA27, UBS3, and Hoskier apparatuses.  Perhaps I am not understanding the Muenster page correctly.
         
        I was compiling the textual variants for PHAPMAKWN in Rev. 9:21, since it causes a split among the Greek New Testament editions, i.e, NA27 and Hodges/Farstad set against TR and Robinson.
         
        The Muenster page here:
        http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv
         
        indicates that Codex Sinaiticus, (01), omits the phrase containing PHAPMAKWN.  However, I can see the word PHAPMAKWN present myself on the online image at the below link.  It is located in the 3rd column, 15th line up from the bottom, and the last word on the line.
         
        http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/GA01_129b.jpg
         
        Could they be saying that the ORIGINAL hand ommitted the phrase?
         
        Interestingly, much of the same phrase is omitted by MSS 627 and 1828, and also the Italics ar and z, and also one Sahidic Coptic ms, and also Armenian no. 2, Cyprian, and Tyconius No. 1.  (MS. 1828 does add the phrase at the end.)
         
        Thank-you for any helpful input.
         
        David Robert Palmer
        http://www.bibletranslation.ws/tran.html 

        Peter M. Head, PhD
        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
        Tyndale House
        36 Selwyn Gardens
        Cambridge CB3 9BA
        01223 566601
      • David Robert Palmer
        Thank-you for your reply. I see that the link I put for the exact Muenster location does not take anyone back there, but to Matthew 1:1. Here is what it shows
        Message 3 of 21 , May 21, 2007
          
          Thank-you for your reply.
           
          I see that the link I put for the exact Muenster location does not take anyone back there, but to Matthew 1:1.
           
          Here is what it shows for Rev 9:21 and Sinaiticus:
           
          και ου μετενοησαν εκ των φονων αυτων ουτε [*: εκ των φαρμακων αυτων ουτε εκ τηςπονηριας αυτων ουτε εκ των κλεμματων αυτων / ]
           
          kai ou metenohsan ek twn fonwn autwn oute [*: ek twn farmakwn autwn oute ek ths ponjriaV autwn oute ek twn klemmatwn autwn/]
           
          Does this not indicate that something lacked that entire phrase?  At any rate, the entire phrase is bracketed.
           
          David Robert Palmer
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

          As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates to a different word in that string: PORNIAS which is clearly a correction from the original PONHRIAS (as signalled in NA27).

          So I don't see any discrepancy here. You are right that the scanned photo of the facsimile shows FARMAKWN.

          Peter

          .

        • Peter M. Head
          I cannot see any brackets! Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens Cambridge CB3 9BA
          Message 4 of 21 , May 22, 2007
            I cannot see any brackets!

            Peter

            At 18:48 21/05/2007, you wrote:
            
            Thank-you for your reply.
             
            I see that the link I put for the exact Muenster location does not take anyone back there, but to Matthew 1:1.
             
            Here is what it shows for Rev 9:21 and Sinaiticus:
             
            και ου μετενοησαν εκ των φονων αυτων ουτε [*: εκ των φαρμακων αυτων ουτε εκ της πονηριας αυτων ουτε εκ των κλεμματων αυτων / ]
             
            kai ou metenohsan ek twn fonwn autwn oute [*: ek twn farmakwn autwn oute ek ths ponjriaV autwn oute ek twn klemmatwn autwn/]
             
            Does this not indicate that something lacked that entire phrase?  At any rate, the entire phrase is bracketed.
             
            David Robert Palmer
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Peter M. Head
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

            As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates to a different word in that string: PORNIAS which is clearly a correction from the original PONHRIAS (as signalled in NA27).

            So I don't see any discrepancy here. You are right that the scanned photo of the facsimile shows FARMAKWN.

            Peter
            .

            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens
            Cambridge CB3 9BA
            01223 566601
          • Mark Thunderson
            Dear List: I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for some time, and, like many others, must conclude that there is a link between Vaticanus and
            Message 5 of 21 , May 22, 2007
              Dear List:

              I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for
              some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
              there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The
              link was first recognized and discussed by
              Tischendorf, and then by many others including Wieland
              Willker who states:

              "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
              that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
              assume that both codices have been written in the same
              scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
              same time."

              It is very unlikely that one would write such a
              statement if indeed they had not read both manuscripts
              and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
              However, for me the resemblance is no longer a subject
              of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
              interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
              list the following hypothesis:

              1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

              I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
              laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
              not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of Codex
              Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
              faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
              convincing features that Vaticanus is using SInaiticus
              is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
              attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and end
              of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even (in
              the New Testament) the way that books end.

              One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The lines
              in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every 3rd
              or 4th line repetitiously." Yes, Indeed! This is
              precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus had
              4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
              this is precisely why we get this reoccurring sequence
              of identicle lines between the two manuscripts. This
              seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.

              Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus
              has come first." This is mere speculation, which has
              not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
              possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
              written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the case,
              then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
              more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus. This
              would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
              either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
              that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume, since
              the manuscript would be at least only 100 years old at
              the time it was used - maybe less, may more). However,
              to extrapolate on this would means we would have to
              agree upon prior assumptions.

              And, no doubt there might be other objections and
              commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
              However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
              answer many questions surrounding the appearance of
              several variants between the two manuscripts, not to
              mention many other things surrounding their production
              and publication.

              I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
              think and how do you think?

              Sincerely,

              Mark Thunderson.



              ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
              http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
            • Viktor Golinets
              ___ There is the online access to the Great Isaiah Scroll at the Israel Museum http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html Does anybody
              Message 6 of 21 , May 23, 2007
                ___
                There is the online access to the Great Isaiah Scroll at the Israel Museum
                Does anybody know the way to access and to download the images of the scroll at the same site?
                Victor Golinets


                Kennt man wirklich jeden über 3 Ecken? Die Antworten gibt's bei Yahoo! Clever.

              • Steve Puluka
                on 5/23/07 4:55 AM, Viktor Golinets at viktor_golinets@yahoo.de wrote: There is the online access to the Great Isaiah Scroll at the Israel Museum
                Message 7 of 21 , May 23, 2007
                  Re: [textualcriticism] Isaiah Scroll from Qumran at Israel Museum on 5/23/07 4:55 AM, Viktor Golinets at viktor_golinets@... wrote:

                  There is the online access to the Great Isaiah Scroll at the Israel Museum
                   
                  http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html
                   
                  Does anybody know the way to access and to download the images of the scroll at the same site?
                   
                  Victor Golinets

                  This is a flash file.  Once the file has completed loading in your browser there is a copy in the cache folder on your computer.  Do a search of your hard drive for this file name "Isaiah_Scrolling.swf."  You can then copy this to whatever location you like.  

                  Do not close our quit out of your browser or move on to another page until you find the file.  Some may clean up and remove these temporary downloads at that point.

                  --
                  Steve Puluka, MA Duquesne University
                  Cantor, Holy Ghost Church, Mckees Rocks PA
                  http://www.puluka.com
                • yennifmit
                  Dear Mark, I seem to recall that Milne and Skeat looked at the question of common scribes in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and concluded that one of the correctors
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 23, 2007
                    Dear Mark,

                    I seem to recall that Milne and Skeat looked at the question of common
                    scribes in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and concluded that one of the
                    correctors of one manuscript may be a scribe of the other. (Can't
                    remember the specifics.)

                    Milne, H. J. M. and T. C. Skeat. 1938. Scribes and correctors of the
                    Codex Sinaiticus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

                    Your thesis that Vaticanus emulates the lineation of Sinaiticus can be
                    tested statistically. Why not do such a test to decide whether what
                    you see could merely be a chance occurrence?

                    An outline off the top of my head:

                    (1) Take a reasonably large book, say Matt.
                    (2) Count how many times a line in Sinaiticus starts with the same
                    word as a line in Vaticanus. This is the observed frequency.
                    (3) Estimate how often you would expect coincidence of the first word
                    of a line if the MSS had textually similar but nevertheless different
                    exemplars. This is the expected frequency. It might be a bit tricky to
                    work out, and the validity of the test result depends on getting it
                    right. You could get an estimate by taking two fairly similar texts
                    (say W&H and N-A), dividing one up according to the average number of
                    letters per line in Sinaiticus and the other according to the letters
                    per line of Vaticanus then counting coincident first words or word
                    fragments. For good measure, you could then reverse the 'exemplars' to
                    obtain a second estimate, then average the two for a final estimate of
                    the expected frequency. You would need to be careful when dividing
                    words at the ends of lines. For one thing, you would need to get into
                    the mind of the corresponding scribe to emulate when (and where--N.B.
                    syllables) he or she would have divided a word and when he or she
                    would have miniaturised the ending.
                    (4) Do a chi-squared test to determine whether the observed and
                    expected frequencies are significantly different.

                    Step 3 has a number of difficulties. For a start, the orthography of
                    modern editions differs from 01 and 03--the old texts are more
                    economical. You might need to add a letter or two per line to compensate.

                    Best

                    Tim Finney



                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson
                    <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear List:
                    >
                    > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for
                    > some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                    > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The
                    > link was first recognized and discussed by
                    > Tischendorf, and then by many others including Wieland
                    > Willker who states:
                    >
                    > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                    > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                    > assume that both codices have been written in the same
                    > scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                    > same time."
                    >
                  • William Warren
                    Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the tremendously close relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your view? Seems to me that these demand that
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 23, 2007
                      Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the tremendously close relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your view?  Seems to me that these demand that the B type of text is being copied faithfully from about the end of the 2nd century until the early 4th (until B).  I've struggled with the B-Aleph relationship in this light since B seems to have a more independent thread of professional copying in its background than what we see in Aleph.  Perhaps Aleph had contact with the text tradition represented by P4-P75-B rather than B coming from Aleph.  Of course, you could postulate that Aleph came from an even earlier tradition, but that seems to defy our actually mss data at least at this point.  Also, of course, with Aleph including all of the NT plus Barnabas and the Shepherd and B including nearly all of the NT, that would require a later date as far as the canon for the text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat is the key word here) over virtually the entire NT canon.  Whenever a text-type cuts across large amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a different issue on this, so I'll just stick to the NT), it is either very close to the original or smacks of some type of standardization process being in its history.  At least with B in Luke and John, that process must have been in the late 2nd century if it is indeed such a process.  Just some food for thought.


                      paz, 


                      Bill Warren

                      Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

                      Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

                      New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



                      On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:

                      Dear List:

                      I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for
                      some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                      there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The
                      link was first recognized and discussed by
                      Tischendorf, and then by many others including Wieland
                      Willker who states:

                      "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                      that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                      assume that both codices have been written in the same
                      scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                      same time."

                      It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                      statement if indeed they had not read both manuscripts
                      and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                      However, for me the resemblance is no longer a subject
                      of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                      interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                      list the following hypothesis:

                      1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

                      I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                      laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
                      not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of Codex
                      Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                      faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                      convincing features that Vaticanus is using SInaiticus
                      is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
                      attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and end
                      of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even (in
                      the New Testament) the way that books end.

                      One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The lines
                      in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every 3rd
                      or 4th line repetitiously." Yes, Indeed! This is
                      precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus had
                      4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
                      this is precisely why we get this reoccurring sequence
                      of identicle lines between the two manuscripts. This
                      seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.

                      Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus
                      has come first." This is mere speculation, which has
                      not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
                      possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
                      written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the case,
                      then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
                      more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus. This
                      would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
                      either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
                      that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume, since
                      the manuscript would be at least only 100 years old at
                      the time it was used - maybe less, may more). However,
                      to extrapolate on this would means we would have to
                      agree upon prior assumptions.

                      And, no doubt there might be other objections and
                      commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
                      However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
                      answer many questions surrounding the appearance of
                      several variants between the two manuscripts, not to
                      mention many other things surrounding their production
                      and publication.

                      I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                      think and how do you think?

                      Sincerely,

                      Mark Thunderson.

                      __________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
                      http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow


                      =
                    • Lampros F. Kallenos
                      If the address of the page is http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html and the flash file is Isaiah_Scrolling.swf then....., the link to
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 23, 2007
                        If the address of the page is

                        http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/index.html

                        and the flash file is Isaiah_Scrolling.swf

                        then....., the link to the flash file should probably be

                        http://www.imj.org.il/shrine_center/Isaiah_Scrolling/Isaiah_Scrolling.swf

                        or,
                        http://preview.tinyurl.com/22zbkd

                        Perhaps you can right click on the above link and choose "Save as..."

                        Or,
                        open a page in Frontpage (which will be an html page),
                        copy there http://preview.tinyurl.com/22zbkd
                        and make it a link (by entering an end of paragraph
                        at the end of it).
                        Then, right click on this link, and choose "Save as..."


                        Xairetw,


                        .
                        _______________________
                        Lampros F. Kallenos
                        Idalion, Lefkosia
                        Kypros
                        --
                      • Philip
                        Dear Listees, I would like to discuss the subject of Old Testament TEXTUAL CRITICAL METHODOLOGY. As a starting point, I would like a critique on my OT TC
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 24, 2007
                          Dear Listees,
                           
                          I would like to discuss the subject of Old Testament TEXTUAL CRITICAL METHODOLOGY.
                           
                          As a starting point, I would like a critique on my OT TC Methodology with specific reference to SELECTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LXX & MT.
                           
                          Below is the general framework and the attached is more detailed.
                           
                          1.7   Methodology
                          I used Old Testament textual critical methodology. This methodology consisted of six steps as follows:
                          1.      Firstly, I compared the MT and LXX OT quotations.
                          2.      Secondly, I noted the differences between the LXX and MT OT quotations.
                          3.      Thirdly, I examined additional witnesses to the OT text such as the relevant DSS texts and the GNT quotations to find out whether these other witnesses to the OT supported the LXX quotations or the MT quotations.[1]
                          4.      Fourthly, I reviewed literature specific to the LXX/MT verse differences in question to find out what other writers had said concerning specific verse differences between the LXX and MT readings of the same text.
                          5.      Fifthly, I recorded my conclusions, i.e., specific conclusions for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.[2]
                          6.      Finally, I recorded my recommendations; i.e., specific recommendations for each verse where the LXX text differed from the MT text.
                           
                          Best regards,
                          Philip


                          [1] One criticism of the thesis reads as follows,
                           
                             “There is a lot of material in the thesis, but it has not been arranged properly so as to respond adequately to the topic. I get the impression that the topic is too wide and so there is imbalance in the presentations, particularly between the LXX and MT on the one hand, and the Hebrews Texts and the NT on the other hand. Looking at the parts on the Hebrews and NT, it seems inadequate and has not been well-integrated into the latter (i.e. the LXX and MT) part of the thesis.”
                           
                          My response to this criticism is that this thesis is actually a thesis based on Old Testament (OT) textual criticism (TC); and so it is focussed very clearly in the Old Testament, specifically on the differences between the LXX and MT. However, the third step in my OT TC methodology demanded that I examine other witnesses to the variant Old Testament texts. These other witness to the OT were not limited only to OT witnesses such as the dead sea scrolls, but also included New Testament (NT) witnesses, and specifically for this thesis, the Old Testament quotations found in the Greek New Testament (GNT) book of Hebrews; and so the role of the New Testament witnesses, particularly the OT quotations in the NT book of Hebrews is simply as a witness to find out whether the quotations in the GNT book of Hebrews matched the LXX or the MT quotations.
                           
                          I recorded my findings in Chapter 4.
                           
                          [2] Conclusions included an explanation of the differences between the LXX and MT texts for the same OT verse and a hypothesis of what the original autograph text might have read.


                          Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
                        • Viktor Golinets
                          At the University library of Leipzig the digitalizing of Sinaiticus has begun. Take a look unter http://www.ub.uni-leipzig.de/ and press then Digitalisierung
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 24, 2007
                            At the University library of Leipzig the digitalizing of Sinaiticus has begun. Take a look unter http://www.ub.uni-leipzig.de/
                             
                            Victor Golinets


                            Yahoo! Clever - Sie haben Fragen? Yahoo! Nutzer antworten Ihnen.
                          • David Robert Palmer
                            You would see brackets if you chose the option in the drop-down menu called verse by verse and then looked at the bottom of the page. This option is the one
                            Message 13 of 21 , May 26, 2007
                              
                              You would see brackets if you chose the option in the drop-down menu called "verse by verse" and then looked at the bottom of the page.  This option is the one I have found most useful.
                               
                              Regards,
                              David Robert Palmer
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:45 AM
                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

                              I cannot see any brackets!

                              Peter

                              At 18:48 21/05/2007, you wrote:

                              
                              Thank-you for your reply.
                               
                              I see that the link I put for the exact Muenster location does not take anyone back there, but to Matthew 1:1.
                               
                              Here is what it shows for Rev 9:21 and Sinaiticus:
                               
                              και ου μετενοησαν εκ των φονων αυτων ουτε [*: εκ των φαρμακων αυτων ουτε εκ της πονηριας αυτων ουτε εκ των κλεμματων αυτων / ]
                               
                              kai ou metenohsan ek twn fonwn autwn oute [*: ek twn farmakwn autwn oute ek ths ponjriaV autwn oute ek twn klemmatwn autwn/]
                               
                              Does this not indicate that something lacked that entire phrase?  At any rate, the entire phrase is bracketed.
                               
                              David Robert Palmer
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Peter M. Head
                              To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                              Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:16 AM
                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Using the Muenster NT manuscripts transcripts tool

                              As far as I can tell you are misreading the transcript. Which lists a long reading next to 01* which includes FARMAKWN. The reason for indicating 01* relates to a different word in that string: PORNIAS which is clearly a correction from the original PONHRIAS (as signalled in NA27).

                              So I don't see any discrepancy here. You are right that the scanned photo of the facsimile shows FARMAKWN.

                              Peter
                              .

                              Peter M. Head, PhD
                              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                              Tyndale House
                              36 Selwyn Gardens
                              Cambridge CB3 9BA
                              01223 566601

                            • Webb
                              Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar for B: To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively straightforward hypothesis to prove or
                              Message 14 of 21 , May 28, 2007

                                Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar for B:

                                 

                                To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively straightforward hypothesis to prove or disprove. As a meaningful hypothesis, it should result in specific predictions that can be checked, and concrete (if rough) thresholds for failure and success of the hypothesis should be established before testing begins.

                                 

                                I don’t know what the group thinks, but I would expect there to be a very clear relationship between the corrector of B and Aleph—in fact, one could even expect Aleph to have identical corrections at the same place as B periodically, since if the corrector had a second exemplar or a tradition that he was very confident of, and he found that B was “wrong”, yet Aleph agreed, he might in principle feel he had the authority to conform Aleph to what he knew to be “right” while he was at it. On the other hand, if Aleph and B were, as some scholars hold, both written at the same time in the same scriptorium for the emperor Constantine (see Metzger, Text of the NT, pp. 47-48), then Aleph(c) and B(c) could be expected to have very many identical corrected readings. That is, if B is copied from Aleph, there will be numerous Aleph(c) readings which B* gets right without correction. But if Aleph and B were both copied by ear at the same time, then errors in reading the text aloud will result in identical places where, upon checking, both will be found to have the same error, and will be corrected. So the hypothesis could be boiled down thus:

                                 

                                If B is a copy of Aleph, the great majority of corrections in B will not correspond to corrections in Alelph. (Exceptions could be expected in cases where the identical mistake could be predicted to occur independently.) If both were copies of a third ms, there will be significant and regular correlation between the corrections in B and the corrections in Aleph.

                                 

                                All this is subject to checking against the possibility that B and Aleph, after the former was copied from the latter and corrected, were systematically re-corrected and conformed by a later hand.

                                 

                                Webb Mealy

                                 


                                From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William Warren
                                Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:47 PM
                                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Quest for an Exemplar for Vaticanus

                                 

                                Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the tremendously close relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your view? Seems to me that these demand that the B type of text is being copied faithfully from about the end of the 2nd century until the early 4th (until B). I've struggled with the B-Aleph relationship in this light since B seems to have a more independent thread of professional copying in its background than what we see in Aleph. Perhaps Aleph had contact with the text tradition represented by P4-P75-B rather than B coming from Aleph. Of course, you could postulate that Aleph came from an even earlier tradition, but that seems to defy our actually mss data at least at this point. Also, of course, with Aleph including all of the NT plus Barnabas and the Shepherd and B including nearly all of the NT, that would require a later date as far as the canon for the text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat is the key word here) over virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a text-type cuts across large amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a different issue on this, so I'll just stick to the NT), it is either very close to the original or smacks of some type of standardization process being in its history. At least with B in Luke and John, that process must have been in the late 2nd century if it is indeed such a process. Just some food for thought.

                                 

                                paz,

                                 

                                Bill Warren

                                Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

                                Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

                                New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



                                 

                                On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:



                                Dear List:

                                I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for
                                some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                                there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The
                                link was first recognized and discussed by
                                Tischendorf, and then by many others including Wieland
                                Willker who states:

                                "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                                that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                                assume that both codices have been written in the same
                                scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                                same time."

                                It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                                statement if indeed they had not read both manuscripts
                                and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                                However, for me the resemblance is no longer a subject
                                of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                                interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                                list the following hypothesis:

                                1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

                                I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                                laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
                                not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of Codex
                                Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                                faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                                convincing features that Vaticanus is using SInaiticus
                                is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
                                attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and end
                                of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even (in
                                the New Testament) the way that books end.

                                One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The lines
                                in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every 3rd
                                or 4th line repetitiously. " Yes, Indeed! This is
                                precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus had
                                4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
                                this is precisely why we get this reoccurring sequence
                                of identicle lines between the two manuscripts. This
                                seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.

                                Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus
                                has come first." This is mere speculation, which has
                                not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
                                possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
                                written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the case,
                                then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
                                more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus. This
                                would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
                                either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
                                that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume, since
                                the manuscript would be at least only 100 years old at
                                the time it was used - maybe less, may more). However,
                                to extrapolate on this would means we would have to
                                agree upon prior assumptions.

                                And, no doubt there might be other objections and
                                commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
                                However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
                                answer many questions surrounding the appearance of
                                several variants between the two manuscripts, not to
                                mention many other things surrounding their production
                                and publication.

                                I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                                think and how do you think?

                                Sincerely,

                                Mark Thunderson.

                                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
                                http://get.games. yahoo.com/ proddesc? gamekey=monopoly herenow


                                =

                              • James Snapp, Jr.
                                Mark Thunderson, I think it s Extremely Unlikely that Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it s beyond the bounds of
                                Message 15 of 21 , May 28, 2007
                                  Mark Thunderson,

                                  I think it's Extremely Unlikely that Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar
                                  for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it's beyond the bounds of
                                  plausibility:

                                  (1) Different book-lists.
                                  (2) Sometimes B's scribe committed parablepsis where there is no
                                  such feature in Aleph, and vice versa.
                                  (3) There is *not* a clear conscious consistent attempt in B to
                                  emulate the beginning and end of lines in Aleph. Where
                                  correspondence between line-endings exists, it is coincidental and/or
                                  is due to a common desire to begin certain sections neatly at the
                                  beginning of a line. But repeatedly, B's scribe does not follow
                                  Aleph's format in exactly the places where it would be easy and
                                  convenient to do so (for instance, in the list of apostles' names in
                                  Mark 3).
                                  (4) Textual disagreements between the two.
                                  (5) B's scribe in the NT tends to contract fewer nomina sacra that
                                  Aleph's. They also often treat numerical amounts different; Aleph
                                  uses gematria in places where B has the word written longhand. (If
                                  it were just a question of use as an exemplar, this one might be
                                  surmountable if one figures that B was produced by dictation -- but
                                  then the scribe wouldn't be capable of line-for-line comparison in
                                  the first place.)

                                  MT: >>> "If the exemplar for Vaticanus had 4 columns - and Vaticanus
                                  only has 3 column - then this is precisely why we get this
                                  reoccurring sequence of identicle lines between the two manuscripts."
                                  <<<

                                  On the other hand, one could figure that if two scribes start writing
                                  the same text, one using columns about 13 letters wide and the other
                                  using columns about 17 letters wide, they will tend to occasionally
                                  correspond, simply because the multiples of 13 and the multiples of
                                  17 occasionally approximately correspond. This will tend to be most
                                  obvious at the beginning of pericopes, and the pattern will tend to
                                  dissolve as variants, nomina sacra, and numeral-contractions take
                                  effect, and then restart where the next major section starts.

                                  MT: >>> "Again, one may object saying, "We know that Vaticanus has
                                  come first." This is mere speculation, which has not dealt
                                  reasonably with the evidence." <<<

                                  Vaticanus doesn't have the Eusebian Canons, and its treatment of the
                                  nomina sacra seems less developed than that in Aleph (unless
                                  Vaticanus' scribes had a (theological?) motivation to use a short
                                  list of nomina sacra). Scenarios can be imagined, though, in which
                                  Sinaiticus was made before Vaticanus. (Skeat's theory is one such
                                  example, in which manuscript-makers realized, after making
                                  Sinaiticus, that a more compact format would be more economical, and
                                  used the more compact format for B.)

                                  MT: >>> "This would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus was
                                  either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even that of Origin
                                  (this is reasonable to assume, since the manuscript would be at least
                                  only 100 years old at the time it was used - maybe less, may more)."

                                  In theory, if B was made in Caesarea, it would be possible for its
                                  scribes to have accessed MSS which had once belonged to Origen. But
                                  where do Origen's writings show that he used a NT text that
                                  consistently resembled the text of Aleph or B?

                                  MT: >>> ... What do you think? ... <<<

                                  I don't think there's any chance that Aleph was the exemplar of B. I
                                  do think that the historical relationship between Aleph and B is
                                  closer than just a vague association with the same scriptorium, but I
                                  don't think Skeat was correct about the details; his idea still
                                  leaves a lot left unexplained. I think that maybe, perhaps,
                                  conceivably, the historical link between B and Aleph could possibly
                                  go like this two-stage story:

                                  (1) Vaticanus was produced for Eusebius, following particular orders
                                  from Eusebius, but without his direct supervision, by a young Euzoius
                                  and friends. When Eusebius received the codex, he decided not to use
                                  it because it was textually so unlike the copies that were being
                                  produced under his own direct supervision. But he liked it and kept
                                  it at Caesarea.
                                  (2) About three decades later, Euzoius and Acacius -- still at
                                  Caesarea and now running the place -- notice that some of the old
                                  papyri in the library are decaying, so, in order to speedily preserve
                                  and simultaneously organize the contents of the papyri of books of
                                  the Bible, they collect the best (however dilapidated) old copies,
                                  prepare codex-materials, and make a new codex based on the old
                                  copies. Euzoius' involvement in both codices accounts for something
                                  Kirsopp Lake noticed regarding the lettering in the superscriptions
                                  of Acts:

                                  "The similarity is extremely great, and is scarcely explicable unless
                                  we assume that both hands come from the same scriptorium, while the
                                  differences might conceivably be taken merely to mean that there is a
                                  difference of time between the two hands, -- that is to say that
                                  the /praxeis/ of Codex Vaticanus was written by a scribe in his
                                  youth, and the /praxeis/ of Codex Sinaiticus by the same scribe in
                                  his old age."

                                  If Euzoius was an underling scribe when he helped produce B, and
                                  later served as a diorthotes of Aleph, it could explain a lot. And
                                  it could potentially imply that the common ancestor of Aleph and B in
                                  any given book is not something way back in the early second century;
                                  their common ancestor could be the mother or grandmother of two MSS
                                  stored at Caesarea -- one used by Eusebius, the other used by Euzoius
                                  (which could still be an excellent MS; it just wouldn't be as ancient
                                  as Hort supposed).

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.
                                  Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                  Tipton, IN (USA)
                                  www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                                • James Miller
                                  ... I note that you do not mention WH who raised, then dismissed, this possibility over a century ago in their Introduction. I believe scholarship of
                                  Message 16 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                                    --- Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:

                                    > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                                    > for
                                    > some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                                    > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                                    > The
                                    > link was first recognized and discussed by
                                    > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                                    > Wieland
                                    > Willker who states:
                                    <snip>

                                    I note that you do not mention WH who raised, then
                                    dismissed, this possibility over a century ago in
                                    their Introduction. I believe scholarship of that era
                                    was convinced by their arguments. Likely their
                                    conclusion remains the de facto consensus among
                                    scholars regarding this question (I'm an LXX scholar,
                                    not a NT scholar, so I could be wrong about this). Any
                                    serious re-examination of the question should start
                                    with their arguments, pointing out why their premises
                                    and/or conclusions were flawed and/or what new data
                                    have come to light such that the matter is now under
                                    question again.

                                    > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                                    > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                                    > assume that both codices have been written in the
                                    > same
                                    > scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                                    > same time."

                                    WH noted this as well. They were essentially repeating
                                    or building upon assertions made by Tischendorff.
                                    Don't overlook the fact that Tischendorff was very
                                    keen to establish that the ms he discovered was, in
                                    fact, the oldest full NT manuscript found to date. I
                                    suspect his assertion that the same corrector worked
                                    on both mss may be related to that motivation. But I
                                    leave the final conclusion to better orthographers who
                                    actually have access to the materials under
                                    discussion.

                                    > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                                    <snip>
                                    > I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                                    > think and how do you think?

                                    I think you should have a good long look at what WH,
                                    and maybe at what Tischendorff, have said on this
                                    score. Then you should look good and hard to see if
                                    anyone has addressed this question since that time
                                    (apart from some oblique comments in Milne and Skeat,
                                    as mentioned by another list member, I don't know that
                                    anyone has subsequently addressed the question). Then,
                                    you should frame any argument you want to make about
                                    the matter as a dialog with scholars who have already
                                    addressed this question and come to different
                                    conclusions about it. Show why you question, or agree
                                    with, their conclusions. That looks to me like the
                                    most appropriate starting-point for your argument.

                                    James



                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    TV dinner still cooling?
                                    Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
                                    http://tv.yahoo.com/
                                  • Mark Thunderson
                                    Dear Paz: Thank you for your reply. To respond to your question regarding the close relationship between Vaticanus and P4 and P75, this sort of relationship
                                    Message 17 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                                      Dear Paz:

                                      Thank you for your reply. To respond to your question
                                      regarding the close relationship between Vaticanus and
                                      P4 and P75, this sort of relationship should not come
                                      as a surprise to anyone. Of course Vaticanus has
                                      strong early support. But let me qualify my response
                                      by saying, I have not yet read the actual scanned
                                      images/facsimiles of P4 nor P75. Can your refer me to
                                      an online source of scanned images so I can read and
                                      analyze the papyri? This would be very helpful! Yet,
                                      taking you at your word, this would only suggest a
                                      close fragmentary relationship between P4, P75, and
                                      the Gospel of Luke and John in Vaticanus. But my
                                      interest is with Aleph and Vaticanus. Aleph also has
                                      strong early testimony. Let me also make the point
                                      that - putting all errors of sight and so forth aside
                                      - my hypothesis does not rest merely on similarity but
                                      also upon subtle differences between the manuscripts.
                                      Differences, I hasten to add, that require thought and
                                      that evince theological debate and speculation. For
                                      instance, you mention the difference in the number and
                                      order of books in the NT between Aleph and Vaticanus.
                                      What I find interesting is that the difference in
                                      order (for the most part) is really theological in
                                      nature. Vaticanus places the Epistle of James and
                                      those of Peter and John after the Gospels (and Acts),
                                      whereas in Sinaiticus it is Paul's epistles that
                                      follow the Gospels, then James and Peter and John.
                                      This particular reorganization, firstly, requires
                                      thought as well as a decision. Secondly, it is a
                                      statement about events to which Paul was engrossed as
                                      an Apostle within *second generation* Christianity
                                      (probably around 61 AD). So, in the case of the
                                      Epistolary Literature in Aleph and Vaticanus, the
                                      order is actually the SAME (i.e., the sequence of
                                      Pauline epistles and the sequence within the Petrine
                                      and Johannnie epistoloary literature), but a judgement
                                      about Paul (and James, Cephas and John)) is NOT the
                                      same. But these are issues that arise not so much on
                                      account of Sinaiticus, but how the scribes might have
                                      "used" Sinaiticus as an exemplar. I have more to say,
                                      but I will be in my reply to the others.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      Mark Thunderson.


                                      --- William Warren <WFWarren@...> wrote:

                                      > Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the
                                      > tremendously close
                                      > relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your
                                      > view? Seems to me
                                      > that these demand that the B type of text is being
                                      > copied faithfully
                                      > from about the end of the 2nd century until the
                                      > early 4th (until B).
                                      > I've struggled with the B-Aleph relationship in this
                                      > light since B
                                      > seems to have a more independent thread of
                                      > professional copying in
                                      > its background than what we see in Aleph. Perhaps
                                      > Aleph had contact
                                      > with the text tradition represented by P4-P75-B
                                      > rather than B coming
                                      > from Aleph. Of course, you could postulate that
                                      > Aleph came from an
                                      > even earlier tradition, but that seems to defy our
                                      > actually mss data
                                      > at least at this point. Also, of course, with Aleph
                                      > including all of
                                      > the NT plus Barnabas and the Shepherd and B
                                      > including nearly all of
                                      > the NT, that would require a later date as far as
                                      > the canon for the
                                      > text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat is the
                                      > key word here) over
                                      > virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a text-type
                                      > cuts across
                                      > large amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a
                                      > different issue on this,
                                      > so I'll just stick to the NT), it is either very
                                      > close to the
                                      > original or smacks of some type of standardization
                                      > process being in
                                      > its history. At least with B in Luke and John, that
                                      > process must
                                      > have been in the late 2nd century if it is indeed
                                      > such a process.
                                      > Just some food for thought.
                                      >
                                      > paz,
                                      >
                                      > Bill Warren
                                      > Director of the Center for New Testament Textual
                                      > Studies
                                      > Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament
                                      > and Greek
                                      > New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Dear List:
                                      > >
                                      > > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                                      > for
                                      > > some time, and, like many others, must conclude
                                      > that
                                      > > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                                      > The
                                      > > link was first recognized and discussed by
                                      > > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                                      > Wieland
                                      > > Willker who states:
                                      > >
                                      > > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar
                                      > to
                                      > > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                                      > > assume that both codices have been written in the
                                      > same
                                      > > scriptorium or at least the same place at around
                                      > the
                                      > > same time."
                                      > >
                                      > > It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                                      > > statement if indeed they had not read both
                                      > manuscripts
                                      > > and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                                      > > However, for me the resemblance is no longer a
                                      > subject
                                      > > of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                                      > > interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                                      > > list the following hypothesis:
                                      > >
                                      > > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                                      > >
                                      > > I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                                      > > laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate -
                                      > if
                                      > > not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of
                                      > Codex
                                      > > Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                                      > > faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                                      > > convincing features that Vaticanus is using
                                      > SInaiticus
                                      > > is the way the lines begin and end. There is a
                                      > clear
                                      > > attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and
                                      > end
                                      > > of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even
                                      > (in
                                      > > the New Testament) the way that books end.
                                      > >
                                      > > One may object to this hypothesis saying, "The
                                      > lines
                                      > > in Vaticanus only match those of Sinaiticus every
                                      > 3rd
                                      > > or 4th line repetitiously." Yes, Indeed! This is
                                      > > precisely my point. If the exemplar for Vaticanus
                                      > had
                                      > > 4 columns - and Vaticanus only has 3 column - then
                                      > > this is precisely why we get this reoccurring
                                      > sequence
                                      > > of identicle lines between the two manuscripts.
                                      > This
                                      > > seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption.
                                      > >
                                      > > Again, one may object saying, "We know that
                                      > Vaticanus
                                      > > has come first." This is mere speculation, which
                                      > has
                                      > > not dealt reasonably with the evidence. It is
                                      > > possible, however, that Vaticanus might have been
                                      > > written prior to Sinaiticus, but, if this is the
                                      > case,
                                      > > then one may then argue that Sinaiticus represents
                                      > > more faithfully the exemplar used by Vaticanus.
                                      > This
                                      > > would also imply that the exemplar for Vaticanus
                                      > was
                                      > > either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps
                                      > even
                                      > > that of Origin (this is reasonable to assume,
                                      > since
                                      > > the manuscript would be at least only 100 years
                                      > old at
                                      > > the time it was used - maybe less, may more).
                                      > However,
                                      > > to extrapolate on this would means we would have
                                      > to
                                      > > agree upon prior assumptions.
                                      > >
                                      > > And, no doubt there might be other objections and
                                      > > commendations which I cannot raise at this time.
                                      > > However, my own reasoning suggests that this would
                                      > > answer many questions surrounding the appearance
                                      > of
                                      > > several variants between the two manuscripts, not
                                      > to
                                      > > mention many other things surrounding their
                                      > production
                                      > > and publication.
                                      > >
                                      > > I welcome any comments from the list. What do you
                                      > > think and how do you think?
                                      > >
                                      > > Sincerely,
                                      > >
                                      > > Mark Thunderson.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      __________________________________________________________Boardwalk
                                      >
                                      > > for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now
                                      > (it's updated for
                                      > > today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >



                                      ____________________________________________________________________________________Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
                                    • Mark Thunderson
                                      Dear Webb: Thank you for your reply. As for your theorizing with respect to my hypothesis, while it certainly sounds thorough, my own experience in matters
                                      Message 18 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                                        Dear Webb:

                                        Thank you for your reply. As for your theorizing with
                                        respect to my hypothesis, while it certainly sounds
                                        thorough, my own experience in matters like this is
                                        that the hypothesis that Aleph is the exemplar for
                                        Vaticanus is delicate. In other words, methodological
                                        assumptions regarding the hypothesis need to specially
                                        crafted and applied with precision. The good part, is
                                        that testing has already begun.

                                        I, too, don't know what the group thinks. But my hope
                                        is that this generation might move beyond trivial
                                        variants and worn out ideas to form an opinion about
                                        these two great documents. Your assumption concerning
                                        that actions of scribal emmendations and a common
                                        scriptorium seems sound, but theology trumps reason in
                                        matters like this (i.e., I don't subscribe to a common
                                        scriptorium for both manuscripts - It seems absurd to
                                        me). If one assumes an empirical approach, then
                                        theological duels must be taken into consideration
                                        (hence my use of the word "delicate" above).

                                        Therefore, as for your own refinement to the
                                        hypothesis, I agree in principle that "If B is a copy
                                        of Aleph, the great majority of corrections in B will
                                        not correspond to corrections in Aleph." But only if
                                        the premise is that either (a) there were no prior
                                        "corrections" or (b) the corrections within Aleph were
                                        taken over as true blue "corrections," and not prior
                                        "corruptions." But in praxis this is only a half
                                        truth.

                                        As for the second part of your refinement to the
                                        hypothesis that "If
                                        both were copies of a third ms, there will be
                                        significant and regular correlation between the
                                        corrections in B and the corrections in Aleph" - well
                                        this is very much the case! But, why "corrections?"
                                        Scribal tinkering within the pages of both Sinaiticus
                                        and Vaticanus continued for a very long time after the
                                        production of the manuscripts themselves. The main
                                        text inside the columns, and scribal emmendations made
                                        during production are of chief concern, right?

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Mark Thunderson.



                                        --- Webb <webb@...> wrote:

                                        > Regarding the hypothesis of Aleph being the exemplar
                                        > for B:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > To me as a non-expert, this sounds like a relatively
                                        > straightforward
                                        > hypothesis to prove or disprove. As a meaningful
                                        > hypothesis, it should
                                        > result in specific predictions that can be checked,
                                        > and concrete (if rough)
                                        > thresholds for failure and success of the hypothesis
                                        > should be established
                                        > before testing begins.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I don't know what the group thinks, but I would
                                        > expect there to be a very
                                        > clear relationship between the corrector of B and
                                        > Aleph-in fact, one could
                                        > even expect Aleph to have identical corrections at
                                        > the same place as B
                                        > periodically, since if the corrector had a second
                                        > exemplar or a tradition
                                        > that he was very confident of, and he found that B
                                        > was "wrong", yet Aleph
                                        > agreed, he might in principle feel he had the
                                        > authority to conform Aleph to
                                        > what he knew to be "right" while he was at it. On
                                        > the other hand, if Aleph
                                        > and B were, as some scholars hold, both written at
                                        > the same time in the same
                                        > scriptorium for the emperor Constantine (see
                                        > Metzger, Text of the NT, pp.
                                        > 47-48), then Aleph(c) and B(c) could be expected to
                                        > have very many identical
                                        > corrected readings. That is, if B is copied from
                                        > Aleph, there will be
                                        > numerous Aleph(c) readings which B* gets right
                                        > without correction. But if
                                        > Aleph and B were both copied by ear at the same
                                        > time, then errors in reading
                                        > the text aloud will result in identical places
                                        > where, upon checking, both
                                        > will be found to have the same error, and will be
                                        > corrected. So the
                                        > hypothesis could be boiled down thus:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > If B is a copy of Aleph, the great majority of
                                        > corrections in B will not
                                        > correspond to corrections in Alelph. (Exceptions
                                        > could be expected in cases
                                        > where the identical mistake could be predicted to
                                        > occur independently.) If
                                        > both were copies of a third ms, there will be
                                        > significant and regular
                                        > correlation between the corrections in B and the
                                        > corrections in Aleph.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > All this is subject to checking against the
                                        > possibility that B and Aleph,
                                        > after the former was copied from the latter and
                                        > corrected, were
                                        > systematically re-corrected and conformed by a later
                                        > hand.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Webb Mealy
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > _____
                                        >
                                        > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                        > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                        > Of William Warren
                                        > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:47 PM
                                        > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Quest for an
                                        > Exemplar for Vaticanus
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Mark, as a question, how would you deal with the
                                        > tremendously close
                                        > relationships between B and P75 and P4 with your
                                        > view? Seems to me that
                                        > these demand that the B type of text is being copied
                                        > faithfully from about
                                        > the end of the 2nd century until the early 4th
                                        > (until B). I've struggled
                                        > with the B-Aleph relationship in this light since B
                                        > seems to have a more
                                        > independent thread of professional copying in its
                                        > background than what we
                                        > see in Aleph. Perhaps Aleph had contact with the
                                        > text tradition represented
                                        > by P4-P75-B rather than B coming from Aleph. Of
                                        > course, you could postulate
                                        > that Aleph came from an even earlier tradition, but
                                        > that seems to defy our
                                        > actually mss data at least at this point. Also, of
                                        > course, with Aleph
                                        > including all of the NT plus Barnabas and the
                                        > Shepherd and B including
                                        > nearly all of the NT, that would require a later
                                        > date as far as the canon
                                        > for the text to be somewhat standardized (somewhat
                                        > is the key word here)
                                        > over virtually the entire NT canon. Whenever a
                                        > text-type cuts across large
                                        > amounts of the NT canon (the LXX is a different
                                        > issue on this, so I'll just
                                        > stick to the NT), it is either very close to the
                                        > original or smacks of some
                                        > type of standardization process being in its
                                        > history. At least with B in
                                        > Luke and John, that process must have been in the
                                        > late 2nd century if it is
                                        > indeed such a process. Just some food for thought.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > paz,
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Bill Warren
                                        >
                                        > Director of the Center for New Testament Textual
                                        > Studies
                                        >
                                        > Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament
                                        > and Greek
                                        >
                                        > New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > On May 22, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Mark Thunderson wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Dear List:
                                        >
                                        > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                                        > for
                                        > some time, and, like many others, must conclude that
                                        > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                                        > The
                                        > link was first recognized and discussed by
                                        > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                                        > Wieland
                                        > Willker who states:
                                        >
                                        > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar to
                                        > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                                        > assume that both codices have been written in the
                                        > same
                                        > scriptorium or at least the same place at around the
                                        > same time."
                                        >
                                        > It is very unlikely that one would write such a
                                        > statement if indeed they had not read both
                                        > manuscripts
                                        > and seen the obvious semblance between the two.
                                        > However, for me the resemblance is no longer a
                                        > subject
                                        > of speculation, but rather one that needs to be
                                        > interpreted. Hence, I would like to suggest to the
                                        > list the following hypothesis:
                                        >
                                        > 1. Codex Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus.
                                        >
                                        > I raise the hypothesis because of the obvious and
                                        > laborious attempts within Vaticanus to emulate - if
                                        > not Codex Sinaiticus - then the same exemplar of
                                        > Codex
                                        > Sinaiticus. In which case, Sinaiticus is more
                                        > faithful to that exemplar. Perhaps one of the most
                                        > convincing features that Vaticanus is using
                                        > SInaiticus
                                        > is the way the lines begin and end. There is a clear
                                        > attempt in Vaticanus to emulate the beginning and
                                        > end
                                        > of lines - even down to the exact letter, and even
                                        > (in
                                        > the New Testament) the way that books end.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        === message truncated ===




                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
                                        http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
                                      • Mark Thunderson
                                        Dear James Snapp, Thank you for your reply. Your -shall we say - cynical? evaluation of the hypothesis that Aleph is the exemplar for B is surprising, to say
                                        Message 19 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                                          Dear James Snapp,

                                          Thank you for your reply. Your -shall we say -
                                          cynical? evaluation of the hypothesis that Aleph is
                                          the exemplar for B is surprising, to say the least.
                                          Nevertheless, let me reply to your objections in
                                          order:

                                          1. With respect to different book lists, I see this as
                                          supporting rather than undermining the hypothesis.
                                          See my response to Paz in this same email thread
                                          where I discuss briefly the different book lists. This
                                          will provide more insight to to this hypothesis.

                                          2. With respect to varying instances of parablepsis,
                                          Can you give an example? Let's see.

                                          3. You say that there is not a clear, conscious nor
                                          consistent attempt in B to emulate the beginning
                                          and end of lines in Aleph. For an example you point
                                          to the list of the naming of the Apostles in the
                                          Gospel of Mark chapter three. While it is true that
                                          Vaticanus does not follow the exact *presentation* of
                                          the text in Sinaiticus (in this instance), my
                                          assertion of a correspondence every three or four
                                          lines still remains very true.

                                          To be sure, lets look more closely at your example:

                                          The naming of the Apostles in Vaticanus is found in
                                          the 11th column of the Gospel of Mark and encompasses
                                          18 lines.

                                          The names of the 12 Apostles in Sinaiticus are found
                                          in the 12th column and encompass exactly 24 lines.
                                          Now, in Vaticanus, of the 18 lines that encompass this
                                          segment of text, there are 4 lines that begin the same
                                          as Sinaiticus, there are 4 lines that end the same as
                                          Sinaiticus, and there is one line that is identical to
                                          Sinaiticus. Therefore, even in this very difficult
                                          example which you provided the principle of emulation
                                          (which I stated in a prior email) still holds true.

                                          4. With respect to textual disagreements between the
                                          two manuscripts, this is a very interesting point,
                                          especially on a textual criticism list. However, it is
                                          precisely because of the *nature* of textual variation
                                          between these two documents (besides obvious instances
                                          of errors in sight) that I would argue, once again,
                                          support rather than undermine the hypothesis that
                                          Aleph is the exemplar for Vaticanus.

                                          5. Your fifth objection is linked to your fourth
                                          objection. Nevertheless, wherever or whenever the
                                          Sacred Name is written, in full or in contracted form,
                                          you have correctly discerned meaning on a very subtle
                                          level, even extending to this hypothesis. I agree
                                          with you on this point.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          Mark Thunderson


                                          --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:

                                          > Mark Thunderson,
                                          >
                                          > I think it's Extremely Unlikely that Codex
                                          > Sinaiticus is the exemplar
                                          > for Vaticanus. Here are some reasons why it's
                                          > beyond the bounds of
                                          > plausibility:
                                          >
                                          > (1) Different book-lists.
                                          > (2) Sometimes B's scribe committed parablepsis
                                          > where there is no
                                          > such feature in Aleph, and vice versa.
                                          > (3) There is *not* a clear conscious consistent
                                          > attempt in B to
                                          > emulate the beginning and end of lines in Aleph.
                                          > Where
                                          > correspondence between line-endings exists, it is
                                          > coincidental and/or
                                          > is due to a common desire to begin certain sections
                                          > neatly at the
                                          > beginning of a line. But repeatedly, B's scribe
                                          > does not follow
                                          > Aleph's format in exactly the places where it would
                                          > be easy and
                                          > convenient to do so (for instance, in the list of
                                          > apostles' names in
                                          > Mark 3).
                                          > (4) Textual disagreements between the two.
                                          > (5) B's scribe in the NT tends to contract fewer
                                          > nomina sacra that
                                          > Aleph's. They also often treat numerical amounts
                                          > different; Aleph
                                          > uses gematria in places where B has the word written
                                          > longhand. (If
                                          > it were just a question of use as an exemplar, this
                                          > one might be
                                          > surmountable if one figures that B was produced by
                                          > dictation -- but
                                          > then the scribe wouldn't be capable of line-for-line
                                          > comparison in
                                          > the first place.)
                                          >
                                          > MT: >>> "If the exemplar for Vaticanus had 4
                                          > columns - and Vaticanus
                                          > only has 3 column - then this is precisely why we
                                          > get this
                                          > reoccurring sequence of identicle lines between the
                                          > two manuscripts."
                                          > <<<
                                          >
                                          > On the other hand, one could figure that if two
                                          > scribes start writing
                                          > the same text, one using columns about 13 letters
                                          > wide and the other
                                          > using columns about 17 letters wide, they will tend
                                          > to occasionally
                                          > correspond, simply because the multiples of 13 and
                                          > the multiples of
                                          > 17 occasionally approximately correspond. This will
                                          > tend to be most
                                          > obvious at the beginning of pericopes, and the
                                          > pattern will tend to
                                          > dissolve as variants, nomina sacra, and
                                          > numeral-contractions take
                                          > effect, and then restart where the next major
                                          > section starts.
                                          >
                                          > MT: >>> "Again, one may object saying, "We know
                                          > that Vaticanus has
                                          > come first." This is mere speculation, which has
                                          > not dealt
                                          > reasonably with the evidence." <<<
                                          >
                                          > Vaticanus doesn't have the Eusebian Canons, and its
                                          > treatment of the
                                          > nomina sacra seems less developed than that in Aleph
                                          > (unless
                                          > Vaticanus' scribes had a (theological?) motivation
                                          > to use a short
                                          > list of nomina sacra). Scenarios can be imagined,
                                          > though, in which
                                          > Sinaiticus was made before Vaticanus. (Skeat's
                                          > theory is one such
                                          > example, in which manuscript-makers realized, after
                                          > making
                                          > Sinaiticus, that a more compact format would be more
                                          > economical, and
                                          > used the more compact format for B.)
                                          >
                                          > MT: >>> "This would also imply that the exemplar
                                          > for Vaticanus was
                                          > either the manuscript of Pamphilius, or perhaps even
                                          > that of Origin
                                          > (this is reasonable to assume, since the manuscript
                                          > would be at least
                                          > only 100 years old at the time it was used - maybe
                                          > less, may more)."
                                          >
                                          > In theory, if B was made in Caesarea, it would be
                                          > possible for its
                                          > scribes to have accessed MSS which had once belonged
                                          > to Origen. But
                                          > where do Origen's writings show that he used a NT
                                          > text that
                                          > consistently resembled the text of Aleph or B?
                                          >
                                          > MT: >>> ... What do you think? ... <<<
                                          >
                                          > I don't think there's any chance that Aleph was the
                                          > exemplar of B. I
                                          > do think that the historical relationship between
                                          > Aleph and B is
                                          > closer than just a vague association with the same
                                          > scriptorium, but I
                                          > don't think Skeat was correct about the details; his
                                          > idea still
                                          > leaves a lot left unexplained. I think that maybe,
                                          > perhaps,
                                          > conceivably, the historical link between B and Aleph
                                          > could possibly
                                          > go like this two-stage story:
                                          >
                                          > (1) Vaticanus was produced for Eusebius, following
                                          > particular orders
                                          > from Eusebius, but without his direct supervision,
                                          > by a young Euzoius
                                          > and friends. When Eusebius received the codex, he
                                          > decided not to use
                                          > it because it was textually so unlike the copies
                                          > that were being
                                          > produced under his own direct supervision. But he
                                          > liked it and kept
                                          > it at Caesarea.
                                          > (2) About three decades later, Euzoius and Acacius
                                          > -- still at
                                          > Caesarea and now running the place -- notice that
                                          > some of the old
                                          > papyri in the library are decaying, so, in order to
                                          > speedily preserve
                                          > and simultaneously organize the contents of the
                                          > papyri of books of
                                          > the Bible, they collect the best (however
                                          > dilapidated) old copies,
                                          > prepare codex-materials, and make a new codex based
                                          > on the old
                                          > copies. Euzoius' involvement in both codices
                                          > accounts for something
                                          > Kirsopp Lake noticed regarding the lettering in the
                                          > superscriptions
                                          > of Acts:
                                          >
                                          > "The similarity is extremely great, and is scarcely
                                          > explicable unless
                                          > we assume that both hands come from the same
                                          > scriptorium, while the
                                          > differences might conceivably be taken merely to
                                          > mean that there is a
                                          > difference of time between the two hands, -- that is
                                          > to say that
                                          > the /praxeis/ of Codex Vaticanus was written by a
                                          > scribe in his
                                          > youth, and the /praxeis/ of Codex Sinaiticus by the
                                          > same scribe in
                                          > his old age."
                                          >
                                          > If Euzoius was an underling scribe when he helped
                                          > produce B, and
                                          > later served as a diorthotes of Aleph, it could
                                          > explain a lot. And
                                          > it could potentially imply that the common ancestor
                                          > of Aleph and B in
                                          > any given book is not something way back in the
                                          > early second century;
                                          > their common ancestor could be the mother or
                                          > grandmother of two MSS
                                          > stored at Caesarea -- one used by Eusebius, the
                                          > other used by Euzoius
                                          > (which could still be an excellent MS; it just
                                          > wouldn't be as ancient
                                          > as Hort supposed).
                                          >
                                          > Yours in Christ,
                                          >
                                          > James Snapp, Jr.
                                          > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                          > Tipton, IN (USA)
                                          > www.curtisvillechristian.org/KataMarkon.html
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >




                                          ____________________________________________________________________________________Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
                                          http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
                                        • Mark Thunderson
                                          Dear Tim: Thank you for your reply. The application of mathmatics to manuscripts is interesting. I have briefy looked at numbers and Vaticanus and
                                          Message 20 of 21 , May 29, 2007
                                            Dear Tim:

                                            Thank you for your reply. The application of
                                            mathmatics to manuscripts is interesting. I have
                                            briefy looked at numbers and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,
                                            resulting in great surprise. The numerology in these
                                            two manuscripts is very interesting, especially since
                                            there are Egyptian roots and/or ties to both
                                            manuscripts. I am surprised that little research has
                                            been done in this respect by textual critics.

                                            However, I am skeptical to the extent that this method
                                            alone would be definitive in supporting the hypothesis
                                            that Sinaiticus is the exemplar for Vaticanus. At
                                            this time, I lack the resources to explore your
                                            suggestion in depth.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            Mark Thunderson.



                                            --- yennifmit <tfinney@...> wrote:

                                            > Dear Mark,
                                            >
                                            > I seem to recall that Milne and Skeat looked at the
                                            > question of common
                                            > scribes in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and concluded
                                            > that one of the
                                            > correctors of one manuscript may be a scribe of the
                                            > other. (Can't
                                            > remember the specifics.)
                                            >
                                            > Milne, H. J. M. and T. C. Skeat. 1938. Scribes and
                                            > correctors of the
                                            > Codex Sinaiticus. Oxford: Oxford University
                                            > Press.
                                            >
                                            > Your thesis that Vaticanus emulates the lineation of
                                            > Sinaiticus can be
                                            > tested statistically. Why not do such a test to
                                            > decide whether what
                                            > you see could merely be a chance occurrence?
                                            >
                                            > An outline off the top of my head:
                                            >
                                            > (1) Take a reasonably large book, say Matt.
                                            > (2) Count how many times a line in Sinaiticus starts
                                            > with the same
                                            > word as a line in Vaticanus. This is the observed
                                            > frequency.
                                            > (3) Estimate how often you would expect coincidence
                                            > of the first word
                                            > of a line if the MSS had textually similar but
                                            > nevertheless different
                                            > exemplars. This is the expected frequency. It might
                                            > be a bit tricky to
                                            > work out, and the validity of the test result
                                            > depends on getting it
                                            > right. You could get an estimate by taking two
                                            > fairly similar texts
                                            > (say W&H and N-A), dividing one up according to the
                                            > average number of
                                            > letters per line in Sinaiticus and the other
                                            > according to the letters
                                            > per line of Vaticanus then counting coincident first
                                            > words or word
                                            > fragments. For good measure, you could then reverse
                                            > the 'exemplars' to
                                            > obtain a second estimate, then average the two for a
                                            > final estimate of
                                            > the expected frequency. You would need to be careful
                                            > when dividing
                                            > words at the ends of lines. For one thing, you would
                                            > need to get into
                                            > the mind of the corresponding scribe to emulate when
                                            > (and where--N.B.
                                            > syllables) he or she would have divided a word and
                                            > when he or she
                                            > would have miniaturised the ending.
                                            > (4) Do a chi-squared test to determine whether the
                                            > observed and
                                            > expected frequencies are significantly different.
                                            >
                                            > Step 3 has a number of difficulties. For a start,
                                            > the orthography of
                                            > modern editions differs from 01 and 03--the old
                                            > texts are more
                                            > economical. You might need to add a letter or two
                                            > per line to compensate.
                                            >
                                            > Best
                                            >
                                            > Tim Finney
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark
                                            > Thunderson
                                            > <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Dear List:
                                            > >
                                            > > I have been reading both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
                                            > for
                                            > > some time, and, like many others, must conclude
                                            > that
                                            > > there is a link between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
                                            > The
                                            > > link was first recognized and discussed by
                                            > > Tischendorf, and then by many others including
                                            > Wieland
                                            > > Willker who states:
                                            > >
                                            > > "The writing style [of Vaticanus] is very similar
                                            > to
                                            > > that of Sinaiticus. [Indeed,] it is reasonable to
                                            > > assume that both codices have been written in the
                                            > same
                                            > > scriptorium or at least the same place at around
                                            > the
                                            > > same time."
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >




                                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                            Never miss an email again!
                                            Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
                                            http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
                                          • James Snapp, Jr.
                                            Mark Thunderson, (1) Regarding the different book lists and the different orders: the page-numbering (described in Skeat, I think, in the 1999 article)
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jun 4, 2007
                                              Mark Thunderson,

                                              (1) Regarding the different book lists and the different orders:
                                              the page-numbering (described in Skeat, I think, in the 1999 article)
                                              militates against your theory. And the appearance-versus-non-
                                              appearance of I & II Maccabees, and Barnabas, implies that there was
                                              no particular drive to make the contents of the one codex resemble
                                              the contents of the other. (Btw, "paz" was just Dr. Warren's way of
                                              signing off. Took me a minute to figure out what you meant!)

                                              2) MT: "With respect to varying instances of parablepsis, can you
                                              give an example? Let's see."

                                              I'm away from my files at the moment, but off the top of my head, the
                                              parablepsis in Aleph at Mk. 16:1 and 16:6 are among the many examples
                                              where Aleph skips text that B includes.

                                              (3) MT: "You say that there is not a clear, conscious nor
                                              consistent attempt in B to emulate the beginning and end of lines in
                                              Aleph."

                                              Correct.

                                              MT: "For an example you point to the list of the naming of the
                                              Apostles in the Gospel of Mark chapter three. While it is true that
                                              Vaticanus does not follow the exact *presentation* of the text in
                                              Sinaiticus (in this instance), my assertion of a correspondence every
                                              three or four lines still remains very true."

                                              But that degree of occasional correspondence of line-endings is what
                                              we ought to expect to naturally occur, as the multiples of 13 and of
                                              17 approximately correspond.

                                              MT: "The naming of the Apostles in Vaticanus is found in the 11th
                                              column of the Gospel of Mark and encompasses 18 lines. The names of
                                              the 12 Apostles in Sinaiticus are found in the 12th column and
                                              encompass exactly 24 lines. Now, in Vaticanus, of the 18 lines that
                                              encompass this segment of text, there are 4 lines that begin the same
                                              as Sinaiticus, there are 4 lines that end the same as Sinaiticus, and
                                              there is one line that is identical to Sinaiticus. Therefore, even
                                              in this very difficult example which you provided the principle of
                                              emulation (which I stated in a prior email) still holds true."

                                              The thing to notice is that in Aleph, the names are formatted in a
                                              one-name-per-line arrangement. Such an arrangement is neat; it is
                                              readable; it is helpful. This is precisely the sort of place where,
                                              if a copyist desired to emulate the arrangement of Aleph, that desire
                                              would manifest itslef. But instead, B's copyist treated the names-
                                              list like any other part of the text. If Aleph had been his
                                              exemplar, that would be the /exact opposite/ of format-emulation.

                                              (4) MT: "With respect to textual disagreements between the two
                                              manuscripts, this is a very interesting point, especially on a
                                              textual criticism list. However, it is precisely because of the
                                              *nature* of textual variation between these two documents (besides
                                              obvious instances of errors in sight) that I would argue, once again,
                                              support rather than undermine the hypothesis that Aleph is the
                                              exemplar for Vaticanus."

                                              I'm not sure what you mean. Where Aleph skips text that B includes,
                                              that weighs in against the use of Aleph as the exemplar of B. And
                                              where Aleph has words in a different order than what appears in B,
                                              that weighs in against the use of Aleph as the exemplar of B. And
                                              where Aleph has a word which is rivalled by a different word that
                                              appears in B, that, also, weighs in against the use of Aleph as the
                                              exemplar of B.

                                              In addition, B's orthography is different from Aleph's, and this is
                                              another factor which points away from the idea that B's scribe was
                                              attempting to emulate Aleph's format.

                                              There might be a glimmer of hope for something loosely related to the
                                              theory that Aleph was B's exemplar: it would be interesting to see
                                              how closely B's format and content corresponds to the format and
                                              content of the cancel-sheets in Aleph. Close correspondence between
                                              B's text and Aleph's cancel-sheets (closer than what is usual between
                                              B and Aleph) might suggest a relationship between the two.

                                              Yours in Christ,

                                              James Snapp, Jr.
                                              Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                              Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                              www.textexcavation.com/marcanarchetypescans.html
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.