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

Crescent Moon Rises in Vaticanus

Expand Messages
  • Mark Thunderson
    Dear List: I ve tried to provide several concrete examples of instances where Vaticanus discloses its exemplar, including zoom coverage so that you can see the
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 19, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List:

      I've tried to provide several concrete examples of
      instances where Vaticanus discloses its exemplar,
      including zoom coverage so that you can see the two
      documents - at the same time - for yourself. Just in
      case you're curious, as a premise to my hypothesis, I
      am assuming that if Sinaiticus is the exemplar for
      Vaticanus, then it is only reasonable to assume that
      evidence of this hypothesis is possible on every page.
      This seems to me to be a reasonable assumption. In
      any case, here is some more real-life Eye Candy for
      the text-critical Moon Gazer. You can see it for
      yourself at:

      http://www.geocities.com/good.seed/index.html


      Sincerely,

      Mark Thunderson

      P.S. If you have trouble viewing the page, just let
      me know.



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
      that gives answers, not web links.
      http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      Dear Mark Thunderson, The unreadable stuff in Sinaiticus in Luke 4:2-3 is not unreadable. The first character that looks like a crescent-moon is the letter
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 22, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mark Thunderson,

        The unreadable stuff in Sinaiticus in Luke 4:2-3 is not unreadable.
        The first character that looks like a crescent-moon is the letter
        sigma, appearing where it should be in the word "suntelesqeiswn."
        Possibly the copyist accidentally skipped from epsilon to epsilon,
        and wrote "sunteleis" and stopped, realized his parableptic error,
        and re-wrote the sigma as he resumed writing the word.

        The second crescent-moon = the compacted letters sigma-epsilon-nu at
        the end of the word EPINASEN. What looks like an O superimposed over
        the sigma and epsilon might, perhaps, be a full-sized sigma which the
        copyist wrote and, as he finished it, decided to loop back and re-
        write the sigma a bit smaller, so as to finish the word at the end of
        the line.

        Neither feature renders the text illegible.

        The symbol and the notation in B don't look contemporary to the
        production of the MS. Earl Kellett could probably translate those
        chicken scratches without difficulty. They might be a note about
        fasting for 40 days, or a lection-related note (like, "this is to be
        read 40 days after Baptism-commemoration").

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
        Tipton, IN (USA)
        www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      • Mark Thunderson
        Dear Mr. Snapp: As a wise man once said, While you have the light, walk in it! The night comes when no one can work. When I say unreadable, I am
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 23, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Mr. Snapp:

          As a wise man once said, "While you have the light,
          walk in it! The night comes when no one can work."

          When I say "unreadable," I am referring in this case
          to the SMUDGE at Luke 4:2 in Sinaiticus. You need to
          look at the facing page in Sinaiticus, which is Luke
          3:1-2. And, "yes," of course the ancient scribe, and
          us today, are able to read between the lines.

          With respect to Vaticanus, of course we are talking
          about letters! AND symbols! The notation IS
          CONTEMPORARY with the production of the manuscript.
          The notation was deliberately writtien HARD, with
          EXTRA INK! The reason is simple enough for those with
          insight to preceive: namely, that the scribal note in
          Vaticanus would SMUDGE on the facing page at exactly
          the same spot in Holy Scripture that SInaiticus has
          its SMUDGE - Luke 3:1-2. You need to open the pages
          of Vaticanus to see this. Here we see, once again,
          the scribe mimicking the exemplar in its
          *presentation.*

          Please, READ THE TEXT, LOOK CAREFULLY, you will see
          that what I have to say is beneficial.

          Sincerely,

          Mark Thunderson.



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

          > Dear Mark Thunderson,
          >
          > The unreadable stuff in Sinaiticus in Luke 4:2-3 is
          > not unreadable.
          > The first character that looks like a crescent-moon
          > is the letter
          > sigma, appearing where it should be in the word
          > "suntelesqeiswn."
          > Possibly the copyist accidentally skipped from
          > epsilon to epsilon,
          > and wrote "sunteleis" and stopped, realized his
          > parableptic error,
          > and re-wrote the sigma as he resumed writing the
          > word.
          >
          > The second crescent-moon = the compacted letters
          > sigma-epsilon-nu at
          > the end of the word EPINASEN. What looks like an O
          > superimposed over
          > the sigma and epsilon might, perhaps, be a
          > full-sized sigma which the
          > copyist wrote and, as he finished it, decided to
          > loop back and re-
          > write the sigma a bit smaller, so as to finish the
          > word at the end of
          > the line.
          >
          > Neither feature renders the text illegible.
          >
          > The symbol and the notation in B don't look
          > contemporary to the
          > production of the MS. Earl Kellett could probably
          > translate those
          > chicken scratches without difficulty. They might be
          > a note about
          > fasting for 40 days, or a lection-related note
          > (like, "this is to be
          > read 40 days after Baptism-commemoration").
          >
          > Yours in Christ,
          >
          > James Snapp, Jr.
          > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
          > Tipton, IN (USA)
          > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
          >
          >
          >




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
          with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
          http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
        • idou747
          An interesting observation, but surely the large differences in the text of these manuscripts would exclude one from being the exemplar of the other?
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 28, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            An interesting observation, but surely the large differences in the text of these
            manuscripts would exclude one from being the exemplar of the other?

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Dear Mr. Snapp:
            >
            > As a wise man once said, "While you have the light,
            > walk in it! The night comes when no one can work."
            >
            > When I say "unreadable," I am referring in this case
            > to the SMUDGE at Luke 4:2 in Sinaiticus. You need to
            > look at the facing page in Sinaiticus, which is Luke
            > 3:1-2. And, "yes," of course the ancient scribe, and
            > us today, are able to read between the lines.
            >
            > With respect to Vaticanus, of course we are talking
            > about letters! AND symbols! The notation IS
            > CONTEMPORARY with the production of the manuscript.
            > The notation was deliberately writtien HARD, with
            > EXTRA INK! The reason is simple enough for those with
            > insight to preceive: namely, that the scribal note in
            > Vaticanus would SMUDGE on the facing page at exactly
            > the same spot in Holy Scripture that SInaiticus has
            > its SMUDGE - Luke 3:1-2. You need to open the pages
            > of Vaticanus to see this. Here we see, once again,
            > the scribe mimicking the exemplar in its
            > *presentation.*
            >
            > Please, READ THE TEXT, LOOK CAREFULLY, you will see
            > that what I have to say is beneficial.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            >
            > Mark Thunderson.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Dear Mark Thunderson,
            > >
            > > The unreadable stuff in Sinaiticus in Luke 4:2-3 is
            > > not unreadable.
            > > The first character that looks like a crescent-moon
            > > is the letter
            > > sigma, appearing where it should be in the word
            > > "suntelesqeiswn."
            > > Possibly the copyist accidentally skipped from
            > > epsilon to epsilon,
            > > and wrote "sunteleis" and stopped, realized his
            > > parableptic error,
            > > and re-wrote the sigma as he resumed writing the
            > > word.
            > >
            > > The second crescent-moon = the compacted letters
            > > sigma-epsilon-nu at
            > > the end of the word EPINASEN. What looks like an O
            > > superimposed over
            > > the sigma and epsilon might, perhaps, be a
            > > full-sized sigma which the
            > > copyist wrote and, as he finished it, decided to
            > > loop back and re-
            > > write the sigma a bit smaller, so as to finish the
            > > word at the end of
            > > the line.
            > >
            > > Neither feature renders the text illegible.
            > >
            > > The symbol and the notation in B don't look
            > > contemporary to the
            > > production of the MS. Earl Kellett could probably
            > > translate those
            > > chicken scratches without difficulty. They might be
            > > a note about
            > > fasting for 40 days, or a lection-related note
            > > (like, "this is to be
            > > read 40 days after Baptism-commemoration").
            > >
            > > Yours in Christ,
            > >
            > > James Snapp, Jr.
            > > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
            > > Tipton, IN (USA)
            > > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ____________________________________________________________________________________
            > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
            > with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
            > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
            >
          • William Warren
            I m not going to address the issue of using a smudge on a facing page from a readable note to locate a link to a reading in a different ms, but on the note in
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 28, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm not going to address the issue of using a smudge on a facing page from a readable note to locate a link to a reading in a different ms, but on the note in B, the mark before the note refers to the like mark in the text at the bottom of the previous column which is the beginning of Luke 4 (as I'm sure others have noted).  The note itself, as far as Dr. Earl Kellett and myself have ascertained with only a limited amount of time given to this, is not a lectionary note but rather is a scribal comment and more or less reads as follows: 

              Transcription:  CC      out mn t\ tu\ m 8 h mr / / pinw / ou / o(  kj 8 epira menoj
                          CC correlates the notation with the text (note the identical marginal notation beside the previous column near the bottom of the page).  out (thus, in the same manner) mn (mnhmhn remember)\ t\  tu\ (this seems to be = tu\ t\  touton written starting with the second word and finished above the first one as indicated by the direction of the marks above the letters)  m 8 (m8 forty) h mr / / (hmeraj days) pinw/  (drinking = pinwn) ouk (not, but this is the more difficult word to be sure about in the note)  o kj 8/ (the Lord, with the omicron a point of reinking the pen and the rough breathing mark placed above the omicron) epira / menoj (while being tempted).  So the translation in a smoother form would be: "In the same manner remember this, while being tempted for forty days  the Lord did not drink."  This note would be in sync content wise with the textual variant found in some mss (for example, found in lambda, 13, 69, 124, 346, and therefore f13).  My suspicion is that 788 and 1071 actually support this reading as well, with orthographic differences accounting for the spelling there of EIPEN rather than EPIEN, but that is a discussion for another day perhaps.


              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 Jun 23, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Mark Thunderson wrote:

              Dear Mr. Snapp:

              As a wise man once said, "While you have the light,
              walk in it! The night comes when no one can work."

              When I say "unreadable, " I am referring in this case
              to the SMUDGE at Luke 4:2 in Sinaiticus. You need to
              look at the facing page in Sinaiticus, which is Luke
              3:1-2. And, "yes," of course the ancient scribe, and
              us today, are able to read between the lines.

              With respect to Vaticanus, of course we are talking
              about letters! AND symbols! The notation IS
              CONTEMPORARY with the production of the manuscript. 
              The notation was deliberately writtien HARD, with
              EXTRA INK! The reason is simple enough for those with
              insight to preceive: namely, that the scribal note in
              Vaticanus would SMUDGE on the facing page at exactly
              the same spot in Holy Scripture that SInaiticus has
              its SMUDGE - Luke 3:1-2. You need to open the pages
              of Vaticanus to see this. Here we see, once again,
              the scribe mimicking the exemplar in its
              *presentation. * 

              Please, READ THE TEXT, LOOK CAREFULLY, you will see
              that what I have to say is beneficial. 

              Sincerely,

              Mark Thunderson.

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

              > Dear Mark Thunderson,
              > 
              > The unreadable stuff in Sinaiticus in Luke 4:2-3 is
              > not unreadable. 
              > The first character that looks like a crescent-moon
              > is the letter 
              > sigma, appearing where it should be in the word
              > "suntelesqeiswn. " 
              > Possibly the copyist accidentally skipped from
              > epsilon to epsilon, 
              > and wrote "sunteleis" and stopped, realized his
              > parableptic error, 
              > and re-wrote the sigma as he resumed writing the
              > word.
              > 
              > The second crescent-moon = the compacted letters
              > sigma-epsilon- nu at 
              > the end of the word EPINASEN. What looks like an O
              > superimposed over 
              > the sigma and epsilon might, perhaps, be a
              > full-sized sigma which the 
              > copyist wrote and, as he finished it, decided to
              > loop back and re-
              > write the sigma a bit smaller, so as to finish the
              > word at the end of 
              > the line.
              > 
              > Neither feature renders the text illegible.
              > 
              > The symbol and the notation in B don't look
              > contemporary to the 
              > production of the MS. Earl Kellett could probably
              > translate those 
              > chicken scratches without difficulty. They might be
              > a note about 
              > fasting for 40 days, or a lection-related note
              > (like, "this is to be 
              > read 40 days after Baptism-commemorati on").
              > 
              > Yours in Christ,
              > 
              > James Snapp, Jr.
              > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
              > Tipton, IN (USA)
              > www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html
              > 
              > 
              > 

              ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
              8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
              with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
              http://tools. search.yahoo. com/shortcuts/ #news


              =
            • Mark Thunderson
              Dear Bill Warren and Earl Kellet: ... This is very unfortunate, because this is clearly the more critical matter that I have brought to this list. Sometimes
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Bill Warren and Earl Kellet:

                You wrote:

                > I'm not going to address the issue of using a smudge
                > on a facing page
                > from a readable note to locate a link to a reading
                > in a different ms

                This is very unfortunate, because this is clearly the
                more critical matter that I have brought to this list.
                Sometimes what is right before our face, what is in
                our eyes, we fail to see. Indeed, sometimes hundreds
                of years of tradition (and sometime pride) obscure
                truth, and obscure our claims to pursue the truth.

                Next, you wrote:

                > but on the note in B, as far as Dr. Earl Kellett and
                myself have
                > ascertained with
                > only a limited amount of time given to this, is not
                > a lectionary note
                > but rather is a scribal comment and more or less
                > reads as follows ...
                > In the same manner remember this, while being
                tempted
                > for forty days
                > the Lord did not drink."

                While I commend you for your noble attempt to
                translate the note, I am absolutely certain your
                translation is incorrect. That's right, "incorrect."
                The only way to make sense of this scribal note is to
                have Vaticanus in one hand and Sinaiticus in the other
                hand. At this point it seems fair to me to make the
                assertion that it has been discovered that Sinaiticus
                is the Exemplar for Vaticanus, and that this can be
                supported empirically.

                Those of you who would like a PDF of the translation
                of the scribal note in Vaticanus, please contact me
                off-line. At this point also I will disclose my real
                name below.

                George W. Young, PhD
                email: georgewyoung@...




                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
                Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
                http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
              • idou747
                ... I am puzzled why you would make such a bold and clearly false assertion. Sinaiticus cannot possibly be the Exemplar for Vaticanus because the texts are
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                  > At this point it seems fair to me to make the
                  > assertion that it has been discovered that Sinaiticus
                  > is the Exemplar for Vaticanus, and that this can be
                  > supported empirically.

                  I am puzzled why you would make such a bold and clearly false assertion. Sinaiticus cannot
                  possibly be "the Exemplar" for Vaticanus because the texts are too different.

                  Now if you wanted to claim that Sinaiticus is "one of the" exemplars of Vaticanus, maybe just
                  maybe that could be considered (with considerably more proof). But how can we take you
                  seriously when you make such a wild and clearly false claim?
                • Wieland Willker
                  This thread is now closed. ... Best wishes Wieland
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 4, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    This thread is now closed.


                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thunderson <mark.thunderson@...> wrote:
                    > At this point it seems fair to me to make the
                    > assertion that it has been discovered that Sinaiticus
                    > is the Exemplar for Vaticanus, and that this can be
                    > supported empirically.


                    Best wishes
                    Wieland
                    <><
                    ------------------------------------------------
                    Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                    mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                    http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.