Steven Avery
Administrator
check for PBF spot with David - nomina sacra - and Alexandrinus
Alexandrinus and nomina sacra - David and tertiary - " questions concerning the methodological integrity used in dating ..."
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
TOWARD AN EXEGESIS OF MARK 1:21-28 AND PARALLELS:
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (2016)
Revised and Expanded
GEORGE W. YOUNG, PHD (George Webber Young)
https://ia800208.us.archive.org/28/...allelsCodexAlexandrinusrevisedAndExpanded.pdf
tools of grammatical and narrative-critical methods of exegesis. Moreover, this paper exhibits a critical reading and analysis that is exclusive to Codex Alexandrinus.1 To this extent it elucidates and exhibits features that are unique to the codex, both in terms of the text itself as well as concomitant conclusions. With respect to the nomina sacra—which appear copiously upon every page of the codex and without exception impinge upon issues related to hermeneutics and methodology—all insights gained from their appearance in this analysis are by no means limited to Codex Alexandrinus. Rather, all insights gleaned from the presence of nomina sacra in this analysis can be compared against any uncial manuscript within which they appear. Nomina sacra can be likened to hinges upon which the pages of manuscripts turn or do not turn. Consequently, it is difficult to begin an exegesis of the codex without first discussing nomina sacra in contemporary biblical scholarship and in particular the work of the Paleontologist Ludwig Traube.2 His historical investigation into the origin, the forms, and the widespread use of the nomina sacra was a milestone in biblical scholarship. It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that since the publication of Traube's book, scholars have been reluctant to take up his cause.3 Even for those biblical scholars who did take up Traube's challenge, most of their work was influenced by his palaeographic methodology, which sought to understand the origins, the forms, the and processes of writing nomina sacra, but not the textual content within which those same forms and processes were found (i.e., biblical narrative). Questions regarding a specialized grammar, rhetorical function, and narrative competency (all of which are essential to understanding the nomina sacra) remained unanswered. This seeming oversight no doubt came about because of a preference for text-critical editions of the Bible which do not include nomina sacra. This, in turn, threw a veil over the uncial manuscripts within which the nomina sacra are only ever seen. Nonetheless, since most of the critical scholarship has focused on origins, I will only briefly cover what is most important in this regard, and then move on to an exegetical analysis of Mark 1:21-28 and parallels using Codex Alexandrinus as my primary text.
===========================
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (2016)
Revised and Expanded
GEORGE W. YOUNG, PHD (George Webber Young)
https://ia800208.us.archive.org/28/...allelsCodexAlexandrinusrevisedAndExpanded.pdf
tools of grammatical and narrative-critical methods of exegesis. Moreover, this paper exhibits a critical reading and analysis that is exclusive to Codex Alexandrinus.1 To this extent it elucidates and exhibits features that are unique to the codex, both in terms of the text itself as well as concomitant conclusions. With respect to the nomina sacra—which appear copiously upon every page of the codex and without exception impinge upon issues related to hermeneutics and methodology—all insights gained from their appearance in this analysis are by no means limited to Codex Alexandrinus. Rather, all insights gleaned from the presence of nomina sacra in this analysis can be compared against any uncial manuscript within which they appear. Nomina sacra can be likened to hinges upon which the pages of manuscripts turn or do not turn. Consequently, it is difficult to begin an exegesis of the codex without first discussing nomina sacra in contemporary biblical scholarship and in particular the work of the Paleontologist Ludwig Traube.2 His historical investigation into the origin, the forms, and the widespread use of the nomina sacra was a milestone in biblical scholarship. It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that since the publication of Traube's book, scholars have been reluctant to take up his cause.3 Even for those biblical scholars who did take up Traube's challenge, most of their work was influenced by his palaeographic methodology, which sought to understand the origins, the forms, the and processes of writing nomina sacra, but not the textual content within which those same forms and processes were found (i.e., biblical narrative). Questions regarding a specialized grammar, rhetorical function, and narrative competency (all of which are essential to understanding the nomina sacra) remained unanswered. This seeming oversight no doubt came about because of a preference for text-critical editions of the Bible which do not include nomina sacra. This, in turn, threw a veil over the uncial manuscripts within which the nomina sacra are only ever seen. Nonetheless, since most of the critical scholarship has focused on origins, I will only briefly cover what is most important in this regard, and then move on to an exegetical analysis of Mark 1:21-28 and parallels using Codex Alexandrinus as my primary text.
===========================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (2014)
William Andrew Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA221
Second, in any given manuscript there are up to fifteen Greek words in the contracted form. Traube compiled the list of nomina sacra from Alexandrinus (all fifteen were present) shown in Table 4.9, taking into account both the OT and the NT.128
William Andrew Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA221
Second, in any given manuscript there are up to fifteen Greek words in the contracted form. Traube compiled the list of nomina sacra from Alexandrinus (all fifteen were present) shown in Table 4.9, taking into account both the OT and the NT.128
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Added to post #2
George Webber Young
Codex Vaticanus picks up the surplus e and uses it as a red marker in the margin for this exact same episode (Mk.l:21-28). In Codex Sinaiticus the same surplus e is placed between the columns at Mk. 1:24. Once again, these examples and other phenomena elsewhere raises questions concerning the methodological integrity used in dating Codex Alexandrinus and other uncial manuscripts. Its unfortunate, but as Dirk Jongkind notes,
"any study of the ... apparatus of a given manuscript will suffer from a very serious drawback, which is that hardly any comparative data from other manuscripts [is] available,” and
“I do not know of any systematic study of the variations within the Greek Eusebian apparatus apart from the study of Nestle and a single article by Nordenfalk”;
Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, p. 100.
============================
p. 26
5.2. Areas for Further Research
First, much more research can be done examining the relationship between Ancient Greek language and literature and the Bible. Though often unrecognized, all of ancient Greek language and literature—from the Homeric Epics down to the Orphic philosophers—informs every letter, and thus every word, on every page of the Bible. Much more research needs to be done exploring the relationship between the ancient Greek language and literature and the Bible.
Second, much more research needs to be done on the nomina sacra in uncial manuscripts. A systematic grammar of the forms and functions of nomina sacra as narrative devices is practically none-existent within scholarly literature. Much more research in this area needs to be done.
Third, if the above suggestions are received in good faith, then there are grounds for a re-evaluation of the dating of Codex Alexandrinus and other uncial codices as well, especially in light of their affinity to ancient Greek language and literature.
=====
Finally, connections between the Leningrad Codex, the Babylonian Kudurru, and Codex Alexandrinus (and other uncial manuscripts) could be explored at length. There are some very peculiar connections that are evident between and among these artifacts. Much more research could be done in this regard, including reviewing the 19th century' research that was done in this field.
========
65 One is inclined to ask, from whence did this veil emerge? There are several possibilities:
The veil could have come from one side of the High Priest's garments, the other side being
used to veil the synagogue at Mk. 1:21-28. One could also surmise that the veil emerged as
an item taken from one of the sailors props, e.g., a sail from one of the boats. From a
critical point of view, however, it seems to me that the Gospel is here and elsewhere
pointing to artifacts outside of itself. One may consider, for example, the carpet pages of
the Leningrad Codex (e.g., the Full Lunar Disk, p. 473, the Six Pointed Star, p. 474, and the
Divided Rock, pp. 489-90; The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition, ed., David Noel
Freeman, et. al. [Leiden: Brill, 1998]). If one compares these pages with the Lunar Disk,
the Star Disk, and the Solar Disk on the Babylonian Kudurru, one can see that there are
clear similarities and differences (see the British Museum: www.britishmuseum.org). What
is most intriguing, however, is the cryptic manner in which these and other artifacts are
signalled throughout the Gospel, although in a few instances they seem to be mentioned
explicidy (e.g., Mark 13:24-27).
George Webber Young
Codex Vaticanus picks up the surplus e and uses it as a red marker in the margin for this exact same episode (Mk.l:21-28). In Codex Sinaiticus the same surplus e is placed between the columns at Mk. 1:24. Once again, these examples and other phenomena elsewhere raises questions concerning the methodological integrity used in dating Codex Alexandrinus and other uncial manuscripts. Its unfortunate, but as Dirk Jongkind notes,
"any study of the ... apparatus of a given manuscript will suffer from a very serious drawback, which is that hardly any comparative data from other manuscripts [is] available,” and
“I do not know of any systematic study of the variations within the Greek Eusebian apparatus apart from the study of Nestle and a single article by Nordenfalk”;
Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, p. 100.
============================
p. 26
5.2. Areas for Further Research
First, much more research can be done examining the relationship between Ancient Greek language and literature and the Bible. Though often unrecognized, all of ancient Greek language and literature—from the Homeric Epics down to the Orphic philosophers—informs every letter, and thus every word, on every page of the Bible. Much more research needs to be done exploring the relationship between the ancient Greek language and literature and the Bible.
Second, much more research needs to be done on the nomina sacra in uncial manuscripts. A systematic grammar of the forms and functions of nomina sacra as narrative devices is practically none-existent within scholarly literature. Much more research in this area needs to be done.
Third, if the above suggestions are received in good faith, then there are grounds for a re-evaluation of the dating of Codex Alexandrinus and other uncial codices as well, especially in light of their affinity to ancient Greek language and literature.
=====
Finally, connections between the Leningrad Codex, the Babylonian Kudurru, and Codex Alexandrinus (and other uncial manuscripts) could be explored at length. There are some very peculiar connections that are evident between and among these artifacts. Much more research could be done in this regard, including reviewing the 19th century' research that was done in this field.
========
65 One is inclined to ask, from whence did this veil emerge? There are several possibilities:
The veil could have come from one side of the High Priest's garments, the other side being
used to veil the synagogue at Mk. 1:21-28. One could also surmise that the veil emerged as
an item taken from one of the sailors props, e.g., a sail from one of the boats. From a
critical point of view, however, it seems to me that the Gospel is here and elsewhere
pointing to artifacts outside of itself. One may consider, for example, the carpet pages of
the Leningrad Codex (e.g., the Full Lunar Disk, p. 473, the Six Pointed Star, p. 474, and the
Divided Rock, pp. 489-90; The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition, ed., David Noel
Freeman, et. al. [Leiden: Brill, 1998]). If one compares these pages with the Lunar Disk,
the Star Disk, and the Solar Disk on the Babylonian Kudurru, one can see that there are
clear similarities and differences (see the British Museum: www.britishmuseum.org). What
is most intriguing, however, is the cryptic manner in which these and other artifacts are
signalled throughout the Gospel, although in a few instances they seem to be mentioned
explicidy (e.g., Mark 13:24-27).
Last edited: