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

Re: [textualcriticism] Correctors to Sinaiticus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >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 2 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- 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 4 of 9 , Feb 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- 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.