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

Re: Quest for an Exemplar for Vaticanus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Jun 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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.