Hi,
We are discussing this on:
Accidental Scribal Changes
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the post is awaiting moderation, I figger it is important enough to get a forum thread.
If you go the SART website, you will see an interesting textual page:
Homeoteleuton – Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And there are three short papers that can be reached from that site, one by the researcher who found the homoeoteleuton (and some others with the sames mss), one by yours truly with a little value added, and a third by the researcher describing the history of the discovery. They can be viewed online, printed, or downloaded. They can be used elsewhere simply with proper attribution.
This is likely the strongest “textbook case” of a homoeoteleuton, where you see both the source exemplar manuscript and the later manuscript with the omission, both extant and even available online. It is rare for us to have both ends of the equation, and here there are extremely strong corroborating elements, including full letter-by-letter textual agreement in the section.
What is especially noteworthy is that the source manuscript has generally been dated to hundreds of years later than the homoeoteleuton manuscript! Indicating that standard manuscript dating is out of kilter. And in need of a radical overhaul.
Your feedback and thoughts welcome!
Steven Avery
Asheville, NC
stevenavery said
Hi,We are discussing this on:
Accidental Scribal Changes
** you do not have permission to see this link **And the post is awaiting moderation, I figger it is important enough to get a forum thread.
If you go the SART website, you will see an interesting textual page:
Homeoteleuton – Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
** you do not have permission to see this link **And there are three short papers that can be reached from that site, one by the researcher who found the homoeoteleuton (and some others with the sames mss), one by yours truly with a little value added, and a third by the researcher describing the history of the discovery. They can be viewed online, printed, or downloaded. They can be used elsewhere simply with proper attribution.
This is likely the strongest “textbook case” of a homoeoteleuton, where you see both the source exemplar manuscript and the later manuscript with the omission, both extant and even available online. It is rare for us to have both ends of the equation, and here there are extremely strong corroborating elements, including full letter-by-letter textual agreement in the section.
What is especially noteworthy is that the source manuscript has generally been dated to hundreds of years later than the homoeoteleuton manuscript! Indicating that standard manuscript dating is out of kilter. And in need of a radical overhaul.
Your feedback and thoughts welcome!
Steven Avery
Asheville, NC
It could easily be explained as Claromontanus being a ms faithfully reproduced from a source also used as a source for Sinaiticus.
Thanks.
This explanation is far from “easy”, although it is one of a number of theoretical possibilities.
The first problem is the very fact of a sense-line manuscript being used for Sinaiticus in the theorized 4th century. When all the textual theorists are telling us that parchment was valuable and sense-line writing was a later development, c. sixth century.
Do we continue to change theories simply based on one questionably dated ms? As we have to do on issues like parchment yellowing (look at the Leipzig pages) if we are consistent. In that case, 1500 years of proposed heavy use did not produce yellowing of parchment. While Scrivener from Tischendorf was wrongly saying it was yellow from age. (Scrivener never saw the manuscript, not the 1844 white parchment in Leipzig, or the unevenly yellowed pages in St. Petersburg.)
An additional problem arises from geography and time and ms. style. This was a localized era for manuscripts. Yet we are placing a manuscript at 350 AD in Alexandria or Caesarea and saying this same exemplar is used 200 years later for a diglot far away (likely Sardinia). This is a very difficult theory.
Where else do we such phenomenon of formatting lasting centuries?
Where else do we see any extant ms. A-B homoeoteleutons?
How did the ms. go from locale A to B? With use, wouldn’t it wear out? Plus the texts are different, so it would have to be one of many exemplars used in Sinaiticus (this multi-manuscript element was the style that Simonides used, e.g. in his Baranabas edition of 1843) while still retaining the same line formatting for Claromontanus.
Some of the homoeoteleutons have additional quirky features connecting Sinaiticus and Claromontanus that go beyond simply the loss of the text. Thus, these would have to be retained when the theorized exemplar was used in making Claromontanus.
====================
We now have three examples of these homoeoteleutons from Claromontanus to Sinaiticus from Corinthians placed online. A fourth from Galatians should be up shortly, and more are in the queue.
Sinaiticus Research – Homoeoteleutons
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steven
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)