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

MS 1241 - How Byzantine in Mark ch. 1?

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    Here s a collation of the first chapter of Mark in 1241, using RP-2005 as the collation-base, covering every variant-unit in the lower margin of RP-2005, plus
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a collation of the first chapter of Mark in 1241, using RP-2005 as the collation-base, covering every variant-unit in the lower margin of RP-2005, plus readings in 1241 that agree with neither RP-2005 or NA27. Bear in mind that this was not triple-checked, and I didn't bother mentioning omicron-omega interchanges or the spelling of words that were accompanied by a slash, which seems to have been the copyist's way of indicating that he left out a letter or letters in a word. The format is as follows:

      Ch:v - Reading of 1241 - textual affinity (Byz, NA, or Other)

      (1) 1:1 - UIOU TOU _KU_ - Other
      (2) 1:2 - KAQWS - NA
      (3) 1:2 - TW HSAIA TW PROFHTH - NA
      (4) 1:2 - EGW - Byz
      (5) 1:2 - EMPROSQEN SOU - Byz
      (6) 1:4 - BAPTIZWN - Byz
      (7) 1:5 - PANTES KAI EBAPTIZONTO - NA
      (8) 1:5 - UP' AUTOU EN TW IORDANH - NA
      (9) 1:6 - HN DE - Byz
      (10) 1:6 - KAI HN ESQIWN - Other (instead of KAI ESQIWN)
      (11) 1:7 - TOU UPODHMATOS - Other.
      (12) 1:8 - MEN - Byz
      (13) 1:8 - UMAS EN UDATI - Byz
      (14) 1:8 - AGIW KAI PURI - Other
      (15) 1:9 - TAIS HMERAIS EKEINAIS (transposition) - Other
      (16) 1:9 - O (before _IS_) - Other
      (17) 1:9 - EIS TON IORDANHN UPO IWANNOU - NA
      (18) 1:10 - EUQUS - NA
      (19) 1:10 - APO - Byz
      (20) 1:10 - WSEI - Byz
      (21) 1:10 - EP - Byz
      (22) 1:11 - SOI - NA
      (23) 1:12 - EUQEWS - Other
      (24) 1:13 - EKEI - Byz
      (25) 1:13 - HMERAS TESSARAKONTA - Byz
      (26) 1:13 - KAI TESSARAKONTA NUKTAS - Other
      (27) 1:14 - THS BASILEIAS - Byz
      -- 1:15 - Note: BASILEIA is contracted as BASI with L over the SI, plus a slash.
      (28) 1:16 - PERIPATWN DE - Byz
      (29) 1:16 - TOU - Other (That is, the phrase in 1241 after ANDREAN reads as follows:
      TON ADELFON TOU SIMWNOS
      (30) 1:16 - BALLONTAS ANFIBLHSTRON - Byz (w/slight contraction, no R)
      (31) 1:18 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (32) 1:18 - no AUTWN - NA
      (33) 1:19 - EKEIQEN - Byz
      (34) 1:19 - AUTWN (after DIKTUA) - Other
      (35) 1:20 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (36) 1:21 - KAPERNAOUM KAI EUQUS - Other (actually 1 for Byz and 1 for NA)
      (37) 1:22 - AUTWN (after GRAMMATEIS) - Other (// Mt. 7:29?)
      (38) 1:23 - HN - Byz
      (39) 1:23 - FWNH MEGALH at the end of the verse, before LEGWN of v. 24 (// v. 26?) - Other
      (40) 1:24 - EA - Byz
      (41) 1:26 - FWNHSAN - NA
      (42) 1:27 - APANTES - NA
      (43) 1:27 - TIS H DIDACH H KAINH AUTH OTI - Byz
      (44) 1:28 - KAI EXELQEN - NA
      (45) 1:28 - EIS - Byz
      (46) 1:29 - EUQUS - NA
      (47) 1:30 - TOU (after PENQERA) - Other
      (48) 1:30 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (49) 1:31 - AUTHS - Byz
      (50) 1:31 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (51) In 1:32-1:34, the copyist skipped from KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 32 to the KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 34, omitting everything in between. No one seems to have noticed.
      (52) 1:34 - TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI - Other
      (53) 1:35 - ENNUCA - NA
      (54) 1:36 - KATEDIWXAN - Byz
      (55) 1:36 - O - Byz
      (56) 1:37 - EURONTES AUTON - Byz
      (57) 1:37 - SE ZHTOUSIN - Byz
      (58) 1:38 - AGWMEN ALLACOU - NA
      (59) 1:38 - KAKEI - Other (instead of KAI EKEI; rather minor)
      (60) 1:38 - EXELHLUQA - Byz
      (61) 1:39 - HN - Byz
      (62) 1:39 - EIS TAS SUNAGWGAS - NA
      (63) 1:40 - KAI GONUPETWN (no AUTON) - NA (KAI GONUPETWN bracketed in NA)
      (64) 1:40 - _KE_ (between QELEIS (i.e. QELHS) and DUNASAI) - Other
      (65) 1:41 - O DE _IS_ - Byz
      (66) 1:42 - EIPONTOS AUTOU - Byz
      (67) 1:42 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (68) 1:42 - H LEPRA APHLQEN AP AUTOU (transposition) - Other
      (69) 1:43 - EUQEWS - Byz
      (70) 1:44 - MHDENI EIPHS (MHDEN is absent) - Other
      (71) 1:44 - ALL' - Byz
      (72) 1:44 - MWSHS - Byz
      (73) 1:45 - EN - Byz
      (74) 1:45 - PANTOQEN - NA

      That's 74 variants in all. If not for the copyist's mistake in verses 32-34, we would have another difference between Byz and NA to consider, in 1:33, but the parablepsis-error has the effect of creating a lacuna for v. 33 entirely.

      Here's how the variants stack up, in terms of agreements. Percentages are approximate:

      37 out of 74 agree with Byz. That's 50%. If we slightly recalibrate to separate variant #36 into two parts, then the total amount of Byzantine agreement would be 38 out of 75, which be 51%.

      17 out of 74 agree with NA. That's 26%. If we slightly recalibrate to separate variant #36 into two parts, then the total amount of agreement with NA would be 16 out of 75, which would be 24%.

      20 out of 74 disagree with Byz and with NA. That's 27%. If we slightly recalibrate to separate variant #36 into two parts (one agreeing with Byz and one agreeing with NA, then the total amount of disagreement with Byz and NA would be 18 out of 75, or 24%.

      There's some fuzziness in these numbers, since the reading of 1241 at the end of verse 34 could be treated in a couple of ways. But the picture remains essentially clear: if we approach things by considering the full range of variants, the textual character of 1241 in Mark chapter one is about one-half Byzantine, one-fourth Alexandrian, and one-fourth neither.

      Now let's check this data so as to guard against the minutiae-effect, revisiting the list but excluding the variants that consist of minor orthographic variations, such as name-spelling, and EUQEWS versus EUQUS. Things would look like this:

      (1) 1:2 - UIOU TOU _KU_ - Other
      (2) 1:2 - KAQWS - NA
      (3) 1:2 - TW HSAIA TW PROFHTH - NA
      (4) 1:2 - EGW - Byz
      (5) 1:2 - EMPROSQEN SOU - Byz
      (6) 1:4 - BAPTIZWN - Byz
      (7) 1:5 - PANTES KAI EBAPTIZONTO - NA
      (8) 1:5 - UP' AUTOU EN TW IORDANH - NA
      (9) 1:6 - HN DE - Byz
      (10) 1:6 - KAI HN ESQIWN - Other (instead of KAI ESQIWN)
      (11) 1:8 - MEN - Byz
      (12) 1:8 - UMAS EN UDATI - Byz
      (13) 1:8 - AGIW KAI PURI - Other
      (14) 1:9 - TAIS HMERAIS EKEINAIS (transposition) - Other
      (15) 1:9 - O (before _IS_) - Other
      (16) 1:9 - EIS TON IORDANHN UPO IWANNOU - NA
      (17) 1:10 - APO - Byz
      (18) 1:10 - WSEI - Byz
      (19) 1:10 - EP - Byz
      (20) 1:11 - SOI - NA
      (21) 1:13 - EKEI - Byz
      (22) 1:13 - HMERAS TESSARAKONTA - Byz
      (23) 1:13 - KAI TESSARAKONTA NUKTAS - Other
      (24) 1:14 - THS BASILEIAS - Byz
      (25) 1:16 - PERIPATWN DE - Byz
      (26) 1:16 - TOU - Other (That is, the phrase in 1241 after ANDREAN reads as follows:
      TON ADELFON TOU SIMWNOS
      (27) 1:16 - BALLONTAS ANFIBLHSTRON - Byz (w/slight contraction, no R)
      (28) 1:18 - no AUTWN - NA
      (29) 1:19 - EKEIQEN - Byz
      (30) 1:19 - AUTWN (after DIKTUA) - Other
      (31) 1:22 - AUTWN (after GRAMMATEIS) - Other (// Mt. 7:29?)
      (32) 1:23 - HN - Byz
      (33) 1:23 - FWNH MEGALH at the end of the verse, before LEGWN of v. 24 (// v. 26?) - Other
      (34) 1:24 - EA - Byz
      (35) 1:26 - FWNHSAN - NA
      (36) 1:27 - APANTES - NA
      (37) 1:27 - TIS H DIDACH H KAINH AUTH OTI - Byz
      (38) 1:28 - KAI EXELQEN - NA
      (39) 1:28 - EIS - Byz
      (40) 1:30 - TOU (after PENQERA) - Other
      (41) 1:31 - AUTHS - Byz
      (42) In 1:32-1:34, the copyist skipped from KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 32 to the KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 34, omitting everything in between. No one seems to have noticed.
      (43) 1:34 - TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI - Other
      (44) 1:35 - ENNUCA - NA
      (45) 1:36 - KATEDIWXAN - Byz
      (46) 1:36 - O - Byz
      (47) 1:37 - EURONTES AUTON - Byz
      (48) 1:37 - SE ZHTOUSIN - Byz
      (49) 1:38 - AGWMEN ALLACOU - NA
      (50) 1:38 - EXELHLUQA - Byz
      (51) 1:39 - HN - Byz
      (52) 1:39 - EIS TAS SUNAGWGAS - NA
      (53) 1:40 - KAI GONUPETWN (no AUTON) - NA
      (54) 1:40 - _KE_ (between QELEIS (i.e. QELHS) and DUNASAI) - Other
      (55) 1:41 - O DE _IS_ - Byz
      (56) 1:42 - EIPONTOS AUTOU - Byz
      (57) 1:42 - H LEPRA APHLQEN AP AUTOU (transposition) - Other
      (58) 1:44 - MHDENI EIPHS (MHDEN is absent) - Other
      (59) 1:45 - EN - Byz
      (60) 1:45 - PANTOQEN - NA

      (Note during proof-reading: Oops; I left out TOU UPODHMATOS in 1:7. Just add that and adjust as necessary.)

      With minutiae removed from the equation, we have 60 variants to consider. 29 of them agree with Byz, 15 of them agree with NA, and 16 agree with neither Byz nor NA; the percentages would thus be 48% Byz, 25% NA, and 27% Other. Pretty consistent with what we had before.

      Now the next question is, what is Other? Let's look at the variants that agree with neither Byz nor NA (with #36 excluded, since it is really 1 for Byz and 1 for NA), and try to see what sort of allies 1241 has, when its reading is listed in NA27.

      1 (1) 1:1 UIOU TOU _KU_ - Unique.
      2 (10) 1:6 - KAI HN ESQIWN - Not listed.
      3 (11) 1:7 - TOU UPODHMATOS - Not listed.
      4 (14) 1:8 - AGIW KAI PURI - Not listed.
      5 (15) 1:9 - TAIS HMERAIS EKEINAIS (transposition) - Not listed.
      6 (16) 1:9 - O (before _IS_) - Not listed.
      7 (23) 1:12 - EUQEWS - Not listed.
      8 (26) 1:13 - KAI TESSARAKONTA NUKTAS - Not listed.
      9 (29) 1:16 - TOU - 1241 agrees with A Delta f1, f13, pm.
      10 (34) 1:19 - AUTWN (after DIKTUA) - Not listed.
      11 (37) 1:22 - AUTWN (after GRAMMATEIS) - Not listed.
      12 (39) 1:23 - FWNH MEGALH at the end of the verse, before LEGWN of v. 24 - Not listed.
      13 (47) 1:30 - TOU (after PENQERA) - Not listed.
      14 (51) In 1:32-1:34, the copyist skipped from KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 32 to the KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 34, omitting everything in between. - Not listed, although the copyists of W and Aleph apparently had similar problems.
      15 (43) 1:34 - TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI - 1241 agrees with Aleph-2 C f13 700 892 1424 pc.
      16 (59) 1:38 - KAKEI - Not listed.
      17 (64) 1:40 - _KE_ (between QELEIS (i.e. QELHS) and DUNASAI) - Not listed.
      18 (68) 1:42 - H LEPRA APHLQEN AP AUTOU (transposition) - Not listed.
      19 (70) 1:44 - MHDENI EIPHS (MHDEN is absent) - 1241 agrees with Aleph A D L W Delta 0130 f13 33 565 700 892 1424 2542 l-2211 al, disagreeing with B C Theta f1 Byz Syr-H.

      Thus we have NA-apparatus listings for only four of the 19 readings where 1241 disagrees with Byz and with NA. Not nearly enough to really see relationships, but enough to suggest that a comparison to f13 might reveal something interesting.

      This should all be compared to Lake's collation (in "Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts," Harvard Theological Studies XVII, 1932, beginning on p. 102) to see the orthographic variants included in the collation.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    • Wieland Willker
      Dear Jim, a while ago I checked 1241 in all variants noted in the commentary (about 350). 1241 agrees most often with A, 157, 1071, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H It is
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        Dear Jim,

         

        a while ago I checked 1241 in all variants noted in the commentary (about 350).

        1241 agrees most often with A, 157, 1071, 1424, Maj, Sy-P, Sy-H

        It is furthest away from 01, B, Theta, 565, D, it.

        A special connection to f13 is not visible. I would say that 1241 is closest to the Byzantine text in Mk. The agreement is about 90%.

        1241 is remarkable only in Luke and John.

         

         

         

        > The closing verses of Jn ... (There's a note to the right that

        > probably should be given a close look.) 

         

        I wasn't able to read it, but I suspect it is a lectionary note.

        Here is an image, if someone wants to give it a try:

         

        Overview

        http://www.datenkeule.de/dl.php?file=file1297435967margin.jpg

         

        Crop:

        http://datenkeule.de/dl.php?file=file1297435997margin-crop.jpg

        TOUTO DE … ?

        The last line is DOXAS…

         

         

        Best wishes

            Wieland

            <><

        --------------------------

        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

        Textcritical commentary:

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

         

      • Robert Relyea
        ... Most of these look potentially singular or subsingular, You might want to compare with Swanson and Tischendorf to verify. (I don t completely trust a not
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 11, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          > Now the next question is, what is Other? Let's look at the variants that agree with neither Byz nor NA (with #36 excluded, since it is really 1 for Byz and 1 for NA), and try to see what sort of allies 1241 has, when its reading is listed in NA27.
          >
          > 1 (1) 1:1 UIOU TOU _KU_ - Unique.
          > 2 (10) 1:6 - KAI HN ESQIWN - Not listed.
          > 3 (11) 1:7 - TOU UPODHMATOS - Not listed.
          > 4 (14) 1:8 - AGIW KAI PURI - Not listed.
          > 5 (15) 1:9 - TAIS HMERAIS EKEINAIS (transposition) - Not listed.
          > 6 (16) 1:9 - O (before _IS_) - Not listed.
          > 7 (23) 1:12 - EUQEWS - Not listed.
          > 8 (26) 1:13 - KAI TESSARAKONTA NUKTAS - Not listed.
          > 9 (29) 1:16 - TOU - 1241 agrees with A Delta f1, f13, pm.
          > 10 (34) 1:19 - AUTWN (after DIKTUA) - Not listed.
          > 11 (37) 1:22 - AUTWN (after GRAMMATEIS) - Not listed.
          > 12 (39) 1:23 - FWNH MEGALH at the end of the verse, before LEGWN of v. 24 - Not listed.
          > 13 (47) 1:30 - TOU (after PENQERA) - Not listed.
          > 14 (51) In 1:32-1:34, the copyist skipped from KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 32 to the KAKWS ECONTAS in v. 34, omitting everything in between. - Not listed, although the copyists of W and Aleph apparently had similar problems.
          > 15 (43) 1:34 - TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI - 1241 agrees with Aleph-2 C f13 700 892 1424 pc.
          > 16 (59) 1:38 - KAKEI - Not listed.
          > 17 (64) 1:40 - _KE_ (between QELEIS (i.e. QELHS) and DUNASAI) - Not listed.
          > 18 (68) 1:42 - H LEPRA APHLQEN AP AUTOU (transposition) - Not listed.
          > 19 (70) 1:44 - MHDENI EIPHS (MHDEN is absent) - 1241 agrees with Aleph A D L W Delta 0130 f13 33 565 700 892 1424 2542 l-2211 al, disagreeing with B C Theta f1 Byz Syr-H.
          Most of these look potentially singular or subsingular, You might want
          to compare with Swanson and Tischendorf to verify. (I don't completely
          trust a 'not listed' status in NA 27 to really be singular).

          bob
          > Thus we have NA-apparatus listings for only four of the 19 readings where 1241 disagrees with Byz and with NA. Not nearly enough to really see relationships, but enough to suggest that a comparison to f13 might reveal something interesting.
        • Wieland Willker
          ... that ... I now know what this is. It is a correction. The scribe omitted 21:19a due to parablepsis (TOUTO ... TOUTO). There is an insertion sign after
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 12, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            > The closing verses of Jn ... (There's a note to the right
            that
            > probably should be given a close look.)


            I now know what this is.
            It is a correction.
            The scribe omitted 21:19a due to parablepsis (TOUTO ...
            TOUTO).
            There is an insertion sign after QELEIS, which is also in
            front of the marginal text.

            See here:
            http://img13.myimg.de/Margin98a5d.jpg


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            --------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          • james_snapp_jr
            Wieland, Yep; that s what it is, all right. When I first saw it, without time for a close look, I thought there might be a chance that it s the note
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 12, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Wieland,

              Yep; that's what it is, all right. When I first saw it, without time for a close look, I thought there might be a chance that it's the note attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia about 21:25. But I should've consulted Lake first; he mentions it in his collation:

              19 om TOUTO DE . . . QEON sed
              add in mg. literis minut.
              fors. ipse

              and this is linked to a footnote saying, "The second volume, which begins on f. 117, is partly written in the small writing of the marginal addition on xxi. 19. Possibly it is by the same scribe, but I think more probably by the DIORQWTHS and perhaps the rubricator of the first part."

              Could it have been customary, I wonder, for the proof-reader to add the rubrications upon pages at the same stage in which he did the proof-reading, perhaps as a way to perceive, at a glance, whether a page had or had not been proof-read?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • yennifmit
              Hi Jim and Wieland, It seems that 1241 is like Chrysostom s text in Matt: http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dc/Matt-UBS.15.SMD.png In Mark, 1241 separates from
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 13, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Jim and Wieland,

                It seems that 1241 is like Chrysostom's text in Matt:

                http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dc/Matt-UBS.15.SMD.png

                In Mark, 1241 separates from central members of the Byz cluster at a distance (or dendrogram "height") of about 0.35 (disagreements per variant phrase -- a pure number):

                http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dc/Mark-UBS.5.SMD.png

                Sigma and 1243 separate at about the same distance.

                These dendrograms are based on initial parts of the UBS4 apparatus of Matt (first 14 chapters) and Mark (first five chapters). Being from UBS4, only a sample of variant phrases is included. More comprehensive data would give higher levels of agreement, translating to lower "heights" at which separations happens.

                Unfortunately, I don't have data which includes 1241 for Luke and John.

                If you prefer to look at distance matrices rather than multivariate analysis results, the closest neighbor of 1241 (among those sampled) is 157 in Mark and 0233 in Matt:

                http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dist/Matt-UBS.15.SMD.csv
                http://www.tfinney.net/Views/dist/Mark-UBS.5.SMD.csv

                Best,

                Tim Finney

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear Jim,
                >
                >
                >
                > a while ago I checked 1241 in all variants noted in the
                > commentary (about 350).
                >
                > 1241 agrees most often with A, 157, 1071, 1424, Maj, Sy-P,
                > Sy-H
                >
                > It is furthest away from 01, B, Theta, 565, D, it.
                >
                > A special connection to f13 is not visible. I would say that
                > 1241 is closest to the Byzantine text in Mk. The agreement
                > is about 90%.
                >
                > 1241 is remarkable only in Luke and John.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.