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

Re: [textualcriticism] Correctors to Sinaiticus

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Dear Michael, Apart from K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2nd ed., 1989) p. 108 I know of none. Aland identifies only three
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
      Dear Michael,
       
      Apart from K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2nd ed., 1989) p. 108
      I know of none.  Aland identifies only three correctors (see Jack Kilmon's post for possible additional ones et opt cit there).  They are Aleph 1 (4th-6th cent.); Aleph 2 (ca. 7th cent.); and Aleph c (12th cent).
       
      One thing to remember is that the identification of correctors hands is exceptionally subjective and tenuous at best.
       
      With best regards,
       
      Malcolm

      Michael Theophilos <michael.theophilos@...> wrote:


      Greetings,

      In my files I have a note that the corrector for Aleph was a seventh century hand.  Does
      this ring any bells for anyone?  Has anyone written on the dating of the Aleph corrector?

      Michael 










      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

    • D Jongkind
      The obvious place to go to is of course H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938). They tell
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
        The obvious place to go to is of course H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat,
        Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum,
        1938). They tell you all there is to know about the identification of
        the scribal hands and the correctors.

        Cheers,
        Dirk Jongkind
      • Peter Head
        Milne & Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus. Also thre was a dissertation done at Birmingham some few years back on some aspect fo the
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
          Milne & Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus.

          Also thre was a dissertation done at Birmingham some few years back on some
          aspect fo the correctors of Sinaiticus. You could probably email David
          Parker for details.

          At 09:05 PM 2/3/05, you wrote:



          >Greetings,
          >
          >In my files I have a note that the corrector for Aleph was a seventh
          >century hand. Does
          >this ring any bells for anyone? Has anyone written on the dating of the
          >Aleph corrector?
          >
          >Michael
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
          566607
          Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
          http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
        • Peter Head
          ... I don t think this is very helpful. There is no point having a general rule when it will absolutely depend on the particularities of the manuscript. Even
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
            >Malcolm wrote:



            >One thing to remember is that the identification of correctors hands is
            >exceptionally subjective and tenuous at best.
            >

            I don't think this is very helpful. There is no point having a general rule
            when it will absolutely depend on the particularities of the manuscript.
            Even if (w.r.t. Sinaiticus) one might affirm that the identification of
            correctors hands is exceptionally DIFFICULT and entails the exercise of
            personal judgement; it would not follow that the process was 'tenuous',
            just that one's personal judgements must be tested against the observations
            and arguments of other people who have studied them. Indeed it is not
            equally difficult at every point (identifying correctors for Ephraimi
            Rescriptus, now that must be difficult).

            Peter


            Peter M. Head, PhD
            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            Tyndale House
            36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
            566607
            Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
            http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
          • malcolm robertson
            Dear Peter, I suppose it would be best to qualify my use of tenuous(*) as my own subjective appraisal of the identification of correctors by others.
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
              Dear Peter,
               
              I suppose it would be best to qualify my use of tenuous(*) as my own subjective appraisal of the identification of correctors by others.  Nevertheless, the subjective appraisal of the objective observation still - at least if only to my way of seeing it - is "more or less"(c1) tenuous as far as subjective inferences from the alledged objective data indicate.  If you wish to use difficult instead of tenuous - of course be my guest.  The two factors - objective and subjective - are both variables in the equation that can and oft do prove both difficult and tenuous.
               
              With best regards,
               
              Malcolm

              Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:


              >Malcolm wrote:



              >One thing to remember is that the identification of correctors hands is
              >exceptionally subjective and tenuous at best.
              >

              I don't think this is very helpful. There is no point having a general rule
              when it will absolutely depend on the particularities of the manuscript.
              Even if (w.r.t. Sinaiticus) one might affirm that the identification of
              correctors hands is exceptionally DIFFICULT and entails the exercise of
              personal judgement; it would not follow that the process was 'tenuous',
              just that one's personal judgements must be tested against the observations
              and arguments of other people who have studied them. Indeed it is not
              equally difficult at every point (identifying correctors for Ephraimi
              Rescriptus, now that must be difficult).

              Peter


              Peter M. Head, PhD
              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              Tyndale House
              36 Selwyn Gardens                                       Phone: (UK) 01223
              566607
              Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                      Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
              http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm





              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

            • sarban
              ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism]
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Corrector to Sinaiticus


                >
                >
                >
                > Tischendorf thought there were 4 scribes but Milne and Skeat identified 3,
                > all contemporaries of the same scribal school., only one of which is a
                good
                > speller. Because of the poor spelling and omissions, as many as NINE
                > correctors have worked on the text from the time of its completion up to
                the
                > 12th century. The most extensive corrections were made in the 7th century
                > but these were groups of correctors called alpha c.a and alpha c.b and
                alpha
                > c.a revised the entire mss.
                >
                The late 6th/early 7th century corrections appear to have occurred
                when Sinaiticus was at Caesarea.

                Are those corrections to Revelation in Sinaiticus which agree
                with the text of Andrew of Caesarea, attributed to this corrector
                or to an earlier 4th century corrector ?

                My manuals appear to disagree on this point.

                Andrew Criddle
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: sarban To: Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism]
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
                  To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:57 PM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Corrector to Sinaiticus


                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                  > To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Corrector to Sinaiticus
                  >
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Tischendorf thought there were 4 scribes but Milne and Skeat identified
                  >> 3,
                  >> all contemporaries of the same scribal school., only one of which is a
                  > good
                  >> speller. Because of the poor spelling and omissions, as many as NINE
                  >> correctors have worked on the text from the time of its completion up to
                  > the
                  >> 12th century. The most extensive corrections were made in the 7th
                  >> century
                  >> but these were groups of correctors called alpha c.a and alpha c.b and
                  > alpha
                  >> c.a revised the entire mss.
                  >>
                  > The late 6th/early 7th century corrections appear to have occurred
                  > when Sinaiticus was at Caesarea.
                  >
                  > Are those corrections to Revelation in Sinaiticus which agree
                  > with the text of Andrew of Caesarea, attributed to this corrector
                  > or to an earlier 4th century corrector ?
                  >
                  > My manuals appear to disagree on this point.
                  >
                  > Andrew Criddle


                  It is my understanding that Scribe A wrote Revelation but Scribe D wrote the
                  first five verses and rewrote pages where Scribe A made mistakes. This
                  would have been the original 4th century fellers.

                  Jack
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.