Mark 10:7 - Sinaiticus Vaticanus and ( Codex Athous Lavrensis - 044 - Psi ) Mark 10:29 - Burgon on nomina sacra - conflations

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
1. Mark 10:7 - Athous Lavrensis
2. Acts 28:29 - omission agreement
3. Mark 10:7 - Athous Lavrensis from Kirsopp Lake
4. Mark 10:7 - LaParola - 892

5. Mark 10:7 - Peter Cresswell
(Is Aleph omission possible result of Athous Lavrensis homoeoteleuton?
Or is it simply Vaticanus from Birch)

6. Mark 10:29 and Nomina Sacra - Burgon and Ezra Abbot on singles in Vaticanus
(Make sure we check two Ezra entries and give Ezra Vaticanus omissions it’s own page)'

7. John 13:24 conflation
8. John 13:24 (above) Isaiah 28:22, 29:7
9. ……………. Isaiah 28:22, 29:7

10. more Sinaiticus conflations from Pickering
11. more Sinaiticus conflations from Pickering - Revelation 6:12 - has own page
12. (Minor)
13. (Minor)
14. Royse and an Abundance of Conflations in Sinaiticus - OT and NT
(Are there good ones - like Jude 1:3 )
15. Isaiah conflations in Milne and Skeat


=============

Mark 10:7 - homoeoteleuton Codex Athous Lavrensis

Mark 10:7 — omitted

και προσκολληθησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου
(and be joined to his wife), as in codices Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, Codex Athous Lavrensis,

892, ℓ 48, syrs, goth
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus


Full verse
7 ενεκεν τουτου καταλειψει ανθρωπος τον πατερα αυτου και την μητερα
και προσκολληθησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου.

Codex Sinaiticus Project
Mark 10:7
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

ενεκεν τουτου καταλιψι ανθρωπω τον πρα αυτου και

Add pic here!


1670598687870.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
See also large omisssion agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis
Acts 28:29
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=51&rif2=28:29

LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=51&rif2=28:29

omit]
p74 ‭א A B E Ψ 048 33 81 181 629lat 1175 1739 2344 2464 l6 (l60 omit verses 28 and 29) itdem ite itro its itw vgww vgst syrp syrh copsa copbo arm ethpp geo WH CEI Rivtext TILC Nv NM

καὶ ταῦτα αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος ἀπῆλθον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, πολλὴν ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς συζήτησιν. (with minor variants)]
L P 049 056 0142 36 88 (104 pc l599 307 326 (330 ἔχειν) 383 436 451 453 610 614 629gr 630 945 1241 1409 (1505 2495 αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος) 1678 1877 1891 2127 2412 2492 Byz Lect (l593 omit καὶ... εἰπόντος) (l597 omit ἐν ἑαυτοῖς) itar itc itgig itp itph itw vgcl syrh* armms ethTH slav (Chrysostom πάλιν for πολλὴν) Euthalius ζήτησιν) Cassiodorusvid Theophylact ς [NR] ND Rivmg Dio
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mark 10:7
(Also Matthew 15:6)

Peter Cresswell - saw it here first
https://books.google.com/books?id=aHA8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT101

A similar, possibly even more compelling, example is provided by a phrase omitted in both codices from Mark 10, 7. Jesus is here given to reply to testing questions from Pharisees on the question of divorce. This is how the text appears in Sinaiticus, with the missing lines of text in brackets:

KATAAWIANGPconu)
TONriPAAYTOYKAI
THNMPAAYTOYKAI
(nPOCKOAAHGHCE
TAinPOCTHNrYN
AIKAAYTOYKAI)
ECONTAIOIAYOE1C
CAPKAMIANwCTE

‘a man will leave his father and mother and (he will be joined to his wife. And) the two will be one flesh. For this reason ... ’

Without the omitted passage, the text makes no sense. It lacks the necessary reference to the joining of a man to his wife to explain the reference to two becoming one flesh. The omission occurs in Codex Sinaiticus and it is repeated in Codex Vaticanus. The uncorrected omission is given below the text in brackets:

1670599072466.png

codices. Such a proposition would, of course, presume another remarkable coincidence: that the source, which had the correct and full version, just happened to be written to an average 13 characters per line and happened at this point to reproduce the exact format of the text in Codex Sinaiticus.

It could be argued that the error was originally a two-line, 19 characters per line skip or even a one-line 38-character skip from a single column papyrus. But this then presumes that, when Sinaiticus was written, the text prior to the omission happened by chance to have gone up to the end of a line, in just the right position for an error of homeoteleuton. It also leaves unresolved the problem of how the obvious error remained over time in two separate lines of transmission, when it could have been resolved either by intelligent amendment or by reference to other sources that had the text in full. It is furthermore not a line of argument that can be applied to the skipped text, amounting to 13 characters, missing from both codices at Matthew 15, 6 in the previous example. As a skip, this can only have been a single line.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mark 10:29
https://books.google.com/books?id=VgIsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA103

1671663738394.png


Another Sinaiticus Feature that is Anachronistic
Single word in a Line (check Vaticanus genealogy as limited possible early)

Mark 10:29 (AV)
And Jesus answered and said,
Verily I say unto you,
There is no man that hath left house,
or brethren,
or sisters,
or father,
or mother,
or wife,
or children,
or lands,
for my sake, and the gospel's,

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
φη αυτω ο ιϲ αμη (transcription? needs the word Jesus, nomina)
λεγω ϋμιν ουδιϲ
εϲτιν οϲ αφηκεν
οικιαν η αδελφουϲ
η αδελφαϲ
η πατερα
η μητερα
η τεκνα
η αγρουϲ ┬
ενεκεν του ευαγ

Compare Vaticanus and others:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...cus-vaticanus-and-other-ancient-uncials.2911/

LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=48&rif2=10:29

10:29 (Münster)
ἔφη ὁ Ἰησοῦς] B D 892 (pc) copbo WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς] ‭א pc
ἔφη αὐτοῖς] Ψ
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν] (D) K (Γ omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς) 28 1010 1241 1424 Byzpt (Byzpt δὲ) Byz2005 it Clement ς ND Dio
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν] C Θ f1 f13 565 700 pm it vg syr
ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν] A W pm

1671665630051.png


Mark 10:29 - Looks like a type of conflation involving Psi again!

Burgon - Last Twelve Verses
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292
1671664784632.png

This became a prevailing fashion in the fifth century; e.g. when the Cod. Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written.

CSP
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
1671664981517.png

ι
β
εφη αυτω ο ιϲ αμη
λεγω ϋμιν ουδιϲ
εϲτιν οϲ αφηκεν
οικιαν η αδελφουϲ
η αδελφαϲ
η πατερα
η μητερα
η τεκνα
η αγρουϲ ┬
ενεκεν του ευαγ

More Burgon p. 291

1671806646919.png

===================\

Nomina Sacra -

Combine with others in nomina sacra Sinaiticus master page

Puica - Romanian
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS FOUNDED IN BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS AND CHRISTIANS ICONS
Ilie Melniciuc Puică*
University ‘Al. I. Cuza’, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, 9 Closca, 700065 Iasi

Andrews - Egerton and more
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...10-29-burgon-on-nomina-sacra.2876/#post-12040

Man, heaven,

Spirit, father, father father mother

to be crucified, Israel Jerusalem


1671806796189.png


(2) Cod. א, (like C, and other later MSS.,) is broken up into short paragraphs throughout. The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks indeed: e.g. it is without break of any sort from S. Matth. xvii. 24 to xx. 17: whereas, within the same limits, there are in Cod. א as many as thirty interruptions of the context. From S. Mark xiii. 1 to the end of the Gospel the text is absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in one place: but in Cod. א it is interrupted upwards of fifty times. Again: from S. Luke xvii. 11, to the end of the Gospel there is but one break in Cod. B. But it is broken into well nigh an hundred and fifty short paragraphs in Cod. א.

There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex B, (resembling the style of the papyrus of Hyperides published by Mr. Babington,) is the more ancient. The only places where it approximates to the method of Cod. א, is where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 18, &c.), and where our Lord proclaims the eight Beatitudes (S. Matth. v.)

=================

(5) Further; Cod. א abounds in such contractions as

ΑΝΟC, ΟΥΝΟC,
(with all their cases), for ΑΝΘΡωΠΟC, ΟΥΡΑΝΟC, &c. Not only

ΠΝΑ, ΠΗΡ, ΠΕΡ, ΠΡΑ, ΜΡΑ,
(for ΠΝεΥΜΑ, ΠΑΤΗΡ-ΤεΡ-ΤεΡΑ, ΜΗΤεΡΑ), but also

CΤΡΘΗ, ΙΗΛ, ΙΗΛΗΜ,
for CΤΑΥΡωΘΗ, ΙCΡΑΗΛ, ΙεΡΟΥCΑΛΗΜ.

CΤΡΘΗ - Mark 15:15 end of verse.

=================

But Cod. B, though familiar with ῑc̄, and a few other of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these compendia: which certainly cannot have existed in the earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod א indicates for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.

1672113083055.png


Ezra Abbot response to Burgon on nomina sacra, but not on single words per line

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Volume 10 (1880)
On the Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek Bible
by Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=6rlBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA195

NOTE - Similar and different Abbot section (1888)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145
1672080692198.png

1672080739481.png

1672080858004.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
John 13:24
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him,
that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

Sinaiticus has a wacky conflation, however the component parts are early.

===============================

Westcott-Hort
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA94
1671758626762.png


James Ronald Royse
https://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA89

On the other hand, Milne and Skeat (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, 45-46) cite a few places in Isaiah (Isa 28:22, 29:7 [they have ‘xxiv. 7*], and 29:11) where א‎ seems to have conflated readings in a manner similar to those cited above from the New Testament. Indeed, they refer (46 n. 1) to Scrivener's discussion of such readings, but without discussing the possible role of dictation. Another example of a conflation in א‎ is John 13:24, as noted by Metzger, Textual Commentary 1st ed., 241 (not in 2d ed.).

===============================

Sinaiticus would be
πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν, και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν (add περι ου λεγει)
Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking.
where is ελεγεν

(10) ελεγεν και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν περι ου λεγει :
א
https://greeknewtestament.net/jn13-24

==============================

LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=13:24

13:24 (Münster)
πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει] (p66(c) οὗ εἶπεν) A K W Δ (Θ ᾖ for εἴη) Π f1 (f13 1241 πείθέσθαι) 28 565 700 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz (itr1) syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo goth arm geo Diatessarona Diatessaronv Cyril ς NR ND Dio Nv

πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη οὗτος περὶ οὗ λέγει] D itd

πυθέσθαι περὶ τίνος λέγει] Ψ (syrs copbo? περὶ οὗ)

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] B C L X 068 33 892 1071 (ita itq omit αὐτῷ) itf Origen WH CEI Riv (TILC) NM

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] itaur vg (Origen omit αὐτῷ)

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ περὶ οὗ λέγει] itc eth

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν] 299 itb itff2 itl

uti cognosceret a Iesu de quo dixisset] ite

πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ ἔλεγεν. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] ‭א


===============================

John 13:24:

TEXT: "Peter nodded to him to inquire who it might be about whom he was* speaking"
EVIDENCE: p66c A D ("who this might") K W Delta Theta Pi {Psi} f1 f13 28 565 700 1010 1241 Byz two lat {syr(s)} syr(p,h,pal) cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV
RANK: B

NOTES: "Peter nodded to him and said* to him, 'Tell [us] who it is about whom he is speaking'"
EVIDENCE: B C L X 068 33 892 most lat vg (omit "Tell [us]")
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV {NIV? NEB TEV? ('Ask him')}

OTHER: "Peter nodded to him to inquire who it might be about whom he was speaking and said* to him, 'Tell [us] who it is about whom he is speaking'"
EVIDENCE: S

COMMENTS: The evidence listed above in braces omits "who it might be." The text reading uses the optative mood, which is a more difficult grammatical construction than that found in the notes. Although the optative is found nowhere else in John and this might be considered proof that this reading was added by copyists, it is more likely that several Alexandrian copyists and Latin translators changed this to a simpler construction. The text reading is found in early manuscripts of several kinds of ancient text. Manuscript S has included both readings. The original reading of manuscript p66 is illegible.

===============================

Equitable Eclecticism - Part 1
James Snapp
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/10/equitable-eclecticism-part-1.html

Dr. Wilbur Pickering, in Appendix D of his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, showed that an apparent conflation exists in Codex Sinaiticus at John 13:24 (where the Alexandrian Text has και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν, the Byzantine Text has πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη, and Sinaiticus reads πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν, και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν).

Conflations (Part 2)
James Snapp
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/04/conflations-part-2.html

John 13:24
Byz: Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου λέγει.

D: Σίμων Πέτρους πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη ουτος περι ου λέγει.

B C L 33: Σίμων Πέτρος και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

א: Σίμων Πέτρος πύθεσθαι τίς αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν και λέγει αυτω Ειπε τίς εστιν περι ου λέγει.

Here the reading in א looks like a combination of the Byzantine reading (not, it should be observed, the Western reading in D, for D’s ουτος is nowhere to be found in א here) and the reading in Codex B – as if a copyist had one exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and another exemplar which said that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking, and the scribe combined both readings, so as to write that Simon Peter gestured to the beloved disciple to ask who it might be of whom He was speaking, and told him to say who it was of whom He was speaking.

===============================

Pickering
http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ap_d.html#v81
1671699437573.png


===============================

Metzger

===============================

Burgon - Revision Revised
https://books.google.com/books?id=vVgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16
1671696253714.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Scribes and Correctors p. 45-46
Milne and Skeat

John 13:24 (above)
Isaiah 28:22, 29:7

p. 45
1671695355258.png

1671695479723.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Milne and Skeat corrected by Royse

Isaiah 28:22 (AV)
Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth.

CSP
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...lioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=44&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Isaiah 29:7 (AV) And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision.

CSP
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...lioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=44&side=r&zoomSlider=0
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Additional late potential Sinaiticus conflations from Pickering

1671699580320.png


1671713097686.png


1671713155058.png


1671713207410.png


1671713448428.png


Sinaiticus agrees with E Laudianus in conflation, then corrected.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Testing the Vaticanus search

Abbot
books.google.com

Journal of the American Oriental Society

books.google.com

αΐ'Βρωποσ

Ωρωποσ"
"Βρωποσ"

Ἰωάννης τῆς Κρονστάνδης, τοῦ Ἐπισκόπου Ἀλέξανδρου Σεμενὼφ-Τιὰν-Σάνσκυ, μετάφραση ἀρχιμ. Τιμόθεου, ἔκδοση Ἱ. Μ. Παρακλήτου Ὠρωπὸς Ἀττικῆς 1980.

Τράπεζα Ἰδεῶν - Τράπεζα Ιδεών

Τράπεζα Ἰδεῶν! «Θησαύρισμα ιδεών και αναφορών για την Ορθοδοξία και τον Ελληνισμό»
www.tideon.org www.tideon.org


1672238231217.png
οσ
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Royse and an Abundance of Conflations in Sinaiticus - OT and NT

https://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA87
2 Peter 2:15
Hebrews 10:12 - small conflation
Acts 6:11
1 John 1:5
1 John 4:17
Milne Skeat Scribes Correctors p. 45-46 - this might be Isaiah 28:22 29:7 - (they have 24:7) 29:11
1 Peter 3:8 - two variants have significant support

p. 88
Acts 6:11 - two-state correction
Titus 3:2 - (intrusion from Heb 6:11) (Tischendorf per Scrivener)
1 Peter 2:12 - marginal allusion theorized from 2 Peter 2:10 (Tischendorf per Scrivener)
1 John 1:5 - two-stage correction

p. 89
1 John 4:17 - conflation from 4:16
Rev 4:11
Tischendorf
2 Peter 2:15 (per Scrivener))

1679671474688.png

1679671441128.png


https://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA88
continues 2 Peter 2:15

1679671635873.png



https://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA89
1679671697073.png

1679671771069.png


https://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA600
1679670838091.png

1679670805289.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top