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

Re: [textualcriticism] Correctors to Sinaiticus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.