Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: homoeoteleuton textbook case- Sinaiticus (350 AD?) copied from Claromontanus (550 AD)

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    29
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    9
    I donít have anything to add to most of your comments. And I canít spend much more time on this. Just a few final points.
    The agreement is primarily between Claromantanus and the correction in Sinaiticus? But the corrector is clearly a different hand who might have made his annotation hundreds of years after Sinaiticus was copied, and he might have used a different source to supply the missing verse. I wouldnít expect synergies within the correction to have any beneficial use in determining what Sinaiticusí own source document was, unless you start with the assumption that itís a forgery and the same person used the same ms to correct his own error in a deceptive way.
    It seemed really odd that youíd say that the Sinaiticus copyist was so horribly inept in copying, yet he was letter-perfect in the very section where letter-perfect copying would detrimentally expose his forgery. Or could the greater attention to detail in the correction actually point to a different scribe at work there, which is what would be expected if it was genuine?
    In that section the only variants I see are prophetian in Claromantanus and Sinaiticus, vs propheteian in Vaticanus. And alalazwn in C, vs alalazon in S and V (plus kai ligatures in S and abbreviated endings in V). Alalazwn is the more telling variant I think (a mistaken masculine ending as opposed to the simple alternate spelling of propheteia), so the nudge goes toward a Vaticanus match (or no match).
    Second, you make a big point about the short line and indented kai. But Sinaiticus simply uses short lines and indenting on the next line as a paragraph marker. And he doesnít put all his new paragraphs in the same places as Claromantanus, though he does in this instance. He also uses short lines for stress, to make repeated words stand out for example, as he does with several lines in a row starting with panta or ou, which could also have been a factor in outhen eimi ending up by itself. To know whether the indented Kai is significant youíd have to do a survey of manuscripts to see how many use indented (outdented?) paragraphs and how many start a new paragraph at verse 3. If these are the only two, then yes itís highly significant. If almost every one does the same thing, not so much.
    A lot of your conviction seems to be based on the cumulative argument, and since Iíve neither looked at the other htís nor studied Sinaiticus in any depth, itís not convincing me at this point.

  2. #12
    Undergraduate
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    0
    An ultra-excellent post from JPT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    I donít have anything to add to most of your comments. And I canít spend much more time on this.
    Understood. The second homoeoteleuton analysis involving a different section of the two manuscripts is planned to be up in a few days. (As well as improvements in the study on this one.) Stay tuned!

    Clearly the effect of additional areas with visible source-target homoeoteleutons can give you more confidence of the significance. I think you will appreciate the additional elements, and now that we "know the drill", cut to salient elements more easily.

    Remember, there are no other examples that I know in the Greek ms corpus where you can line up a source and target ms. to give this type of homoeoteleuton. So, the multiplicative, or exponential, effect of seeing two, three, four, five in the same two mss can really be an "oh, wow" trigger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    Just a few final points. The agreement is primarily between Claromantanus and the correction in Sinaiticus? But the corrector is clearly a different hand who might have made his annotation hundreds of years after Sinaiticus was copied,
    The correction caused the Corinthians heading to be moved, which makes it likely to be an early correction. (ie. before the Corinthian headers were added.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    and he might have used a different source to supply the missing verse.
    Thanks, you are right, this is planned for more analysis within the next week.

    W. R. Meyer added a note that relates to this type of question, which I tweaked a bit:

    In the 1800s theory of Sinaiticus creation, the scribe of Sinaiticus compiled a text from multiples sources. One which would be Claromontanus. This has been shown to be the method of Simmonides in the 1843 Barnabas and the 1856 Shepherd of Hermas, and was covered in one video (I'll add the url later.) This methodology would contribute to the large number of scribal errors, and would also explain localization affinities. (This is from the founder of the homoeoteleutons, W. R. Meyer, with some tweaking and writing changes by yours truly.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    I wouldnít expect synergies within the correction to have any beneficial use in determining what Sinaiticusí own source document was, unless you start with the assumption that itís a forgery and the same person used the same ms to correct his own error in a deceptive way.
    There is a lot involved here, so let's wait a bit for the future body-and-correction variation in mss analysis.

    Not really a "deceptive way" would be involved in the Sinaiticus correction, even if it is a replica (or forgery, which likely was not the intent). A correction can be immediately after, or "long" after. It can be the same source doc, or different. The scribe can be accurate, or careless, or make his own changes. Many variables.

    However, since the synergies are being sent back for full review, we can let it pass for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    It seemed really odd that youíd say that the Sinaiticus copyist was so horribly inept in copying, yet he was letter-perfect in the very section where letter-perfect copying would detrimentally expose his forgery. Or could the greater attention to detail in the correction actually point to a different scribe at work there, which is what would be expected if it was genuine?.
    And I was actually incorrect about the letters being the same that long, so let's leave that aside until the revised study comes forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    In that section the only variants I see are prophetian in Claromantanus and Sinaiticus, vs propheteian in Vaticanus. And alalazwn in C, vs alalazon in S and V (plus kai ligatures in S and abbreviated endings in V). Alalazwn is the more telling variant I think (a mistaken masculine ending as opposed to the simple alternate spelling of propheteia), so the nudge goes toward a Vaticanus match (or no match)..
    Thanks on this, I will try to give some feedback shortly. A full study of the variants, including Vaticanus and the TR text, is in process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    Second, you make a big point about the short line and indented kai. But Sinaiticus simply uses short lines and indenting on the next line as a paragraph marker.
    Indenting yes, but not short lines, not even on this pages.
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...r&zoomSlider=0

    I count 13 full lines with indentation, and one other that was short, and that was in a short sense-line section.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    And he doesnít put all his new paragraphs in the same places as Claromantanus, though he does in this instance. He also uses short lines for stress, to make repeated words stand out for example, as he does with several lines in a row starting with panta or ou, which could also have been a factor in outhen eimi ending up by itself. To know whether the indented Kai is significant youíd have to do a survey of manuscripts to see how many use indented (outdented?) paragraphs and how many start a new paragraph at verse 3. If these are the only two, then yes itís highly significant. If almost every one does the same thing, not so much.
    Fair enough. Good thinking on the indented line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Passing Through View Post
    A lot of your conviction seems to be based on the cumulative argument, and since Iíve neither looked at the other htís nor studied Sinaiticus in any depth, itís not convincing me at this point.
    And I fully understand that point. Also you are not familiar with the overall elements of Sinaiticus, Hermas, Barnabas, Simonides and more. Fair enough again.

    So let's start adding more of the homoeoteleutons and see how this helps the mix of connection.

    Your analysis and attempt to work with these issues is helpful and appreciated. Feel free to take a break, but I do hope that you will look at the next one when it is ready and online.

    Steven
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-17-2017 at 05:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •