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

Re: [textualcriticism] 579 in Mk 7:14

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    The Alands list 579 as Category II:  Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of Category I by the presence of alien influences.
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 18 7:23 AM
      The Alands list 579 as Category II: "Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of Category I by the presence of alien influences."

      Does anybody know specifically if these "alien influences" include gaffes like this one, or were they primarily speaking of Byzantine (e.g. PA in John) & Western (e.g. SE in Mark) readings?
       
      Daniel Buck

      From: ron minton <ronminton@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:19 AM
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] 579 in Mk 7:14

       
      Maybe I am as confused as that scribe was.  It looks like he wrote "ton" (having accidentally omitted palin or panta.  He then realized he made a mistake and crossed off something he had written.  In his stress, he looked up again and confused the end of oxlon with the end of ton and wrote ton again.
      Ron Minton

      On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:
       
      I came across Mk 7:14 in minuscule 579 and am wondering what is the reading here.
       
      Please check this PDF for an image:
       
      What is the word after TON?
      Is this some kind of scribal error?
       
      Best wishes
          Wieland
          <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
       
      Please check out the TC forum:
      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
       
       



      --
      Grace be with you,
      Ron Minton - Ukraine
      Ukraine cell = +38.091.357.20.51
      Skype = 240-949-2653
      www.ron.minton.name


    • Jake
      That line of text looks like this IMHO: -MENOS TON [scribble]N ELEGON AUTOIS[dot] AKOUE..... The scribble looks like the scribe missed the omicron in OXLON and
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 18 7:57 AM
        That line of text looks like this IMHO:

        -MENOS TON [scribble]N ELEGON AUTOIS[dot] AKOUE.....

        The scribble looks like the scribe missed the omicron in OXLON and panicked. Or as Ron suggested he may have written TON TON and tried to correct the second TON to OXLON by scratching out TO and adding a lambda superimposed on a chi, but missed the omicron.

        Looks like a 'senior moment' to me  : )

        Jake


        On 1/18/2012 10:23 AM, Daniel Buck wrote:  
        The Alands list 579 as Category II: "Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of Category I by the presence of alien influences."

        Does anybody know specifically if these "alien influences" include gaffes like this one, or were they primarily speaking of Byzantine (e.g. PA in John) & Western (e.g. SE in Mark) readings?
         
        Daniel Buck

        From: ron minton <ronminton@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:19 AM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] 579 in Mk 7:14

         
        Maybe I am as confused as that scribe was.  It looks like he wrote "ton" (having accidentally omitted palin or panta.  He then realized he made a mistake and crossed off something he had written.  In his stress, he looked up again and confused the end of oxlon with the end of ton and wrote ton again.
        Ron Minton

        On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:
         
        I came across Mk 7:14 in minuscule 579 and am wondering what is the reading here.
         
        Please check this PDF for an image:
         
        What is the word after TON?
        Is this some kind of scribal error?
         
        Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
        --------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        Textcritical commentary:
         
        Please check out the TC forum:
         
         



        --
        Grace be with you,
        Ron Minton - Ukraine
        Ukraine cell = +38.091.357.20.51
        Skype = 240-949-2653
        www.ron.minton.name


      • David Palmer
        The next two letters after TON are definitely Xi Lambda, then a tangled scribble, then Omicron Nu, or Omega Nu.  The scribble does look similar to the Gamma
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 24 12:20 PM
          The next two letters after TON are definitely Xi Lambda, then a tangled scribble, then Omicron Nu, or Omega Nu.  The scribble does look similar to the Gamma in the following ELEGEN.
          Another clue is the acute accent over the convergence of the Xi and Lambda.  This idicates that where they cross, there was a vowel, probably his small, raised EPSILON.  This scribe places his acute accents following its vowel.
          One thing I say is that there isn't any trace of PANTA or PALIN (Swanson error).
          My guess would be that the scribe overlooked the word OCLON and was writing LEGWN, then realized his mistake and wrote in CLON.  I would also say that his exemplar did not contain either PALIN or PANTA, as also ms. 565 lacks either.
          When the scribe made his correction, it was easy to change the Lambda to a Xi, just by extending the cross bar rightward.  But he had no room left for the initial Omicron.
           
          David Robert Palmer http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
        • Stephen Carlson
          ... My experience is that most of Swanson s errors occur around corrections in the manuscripts. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in Religion Duke
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 24 1:17 PM
            On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM, David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
            One thing I say is that there isn't any trace of PANTA or PALIN (Swanson error).

            My experience is that most of Swanson's errors occur around corrections in the manuscripts.

            Stephen
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Graduate Program in Religion
            Duke University
          • Wieland Willker
            ... I think that s it! Thank you very much for the suggestion! Best wishes Wieland
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 25 8:59 AM
              David Palmer wrote:
              > My guess would be that the scribe overlooked the word
              > OCLON and was writing LEGWN, then realized his
              > mistake and wrote in CLON.

              I think that's it!
              Thank you very much for the suggestion!


              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              --------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

              Please check out the TC forum:
              http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
            • David Palmer
              I have been thinking more about this, and I think it was not a mistake of the eye, or of overlooking OCLON, but rather of the scribe hearing his
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 25 2:41 PM
                I have been thinking more about this, and I think it was not a mistake of the eye, or of "overlooking" OCLON, but rather of the scribe hearing his pre-recordings internally in his head.  He was so accustomed to hearing/writing the word LEGWN after verbs of speaking, like here, "calling."  He was on automatic.
                As for LEGWN coming after TON, look in the gospels at how many places we find AUTON, LEGWN.
                 
                David Robert Palmer
                http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
              • David Palmer
                Well, it may also be a case homoioarcton.  There is a TON LOGON three lines above.  So, the original hand of this MS may be LOGON.  But, it sure looks like
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 27 7:41 PM
                  Well, it may also be a case homoioarcton.  There is a TON LOGON three lines above.  So, the original hand of this MS may be LOGON.  But, it sure looks like an omega that he tried to obliterate.
                   
                  David Robert Palmer
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.