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

Re: [textualcriticism] MS 1241 - How Byzantine in Mark ch. 1?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.