Steven Avery
Administrator
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...w-active-imaginations-m-t5960-s20.html#p79996
On p. 46 Skeat & Milne begin a section:
2. The C Correctors
As an example:
CPamph must be distinguished from Ca .... CPamph is demonstrably later in date
(This is not based on the script but internal considerations .. ie. circular to the 4th century theories)
On p. 50 there is one actual script note:
Cc* ....nothing to indicate his relationship to the other C hands. Probably he is a good deal later than any of them, as he freely uses the T ligature for OT, a form which seems not to occur before the eighth century, although its genesis may reach back to the seventh.
The section ends on p. 51. That is the only century reference.
================================
On p. 1 there is a very awkward spot about the three crosses note
a scribe of perhaps the seventh or eighth century ... has written three crosses and ...
In this weird theory the codex was used for c. 350 years, and then somebody put in a note about the way the production got messed up.
================================
p. 7, they put one the later numerations in the 8th century
p. 9 fourteenth-century Arabic foliation)
p. 65 As regards the correctors, the conclusions formed by Lake still hold the field. The A and B corrections we have shown to be contemporary with the manuscript, since they are attributable to the scribes of the text themselves. The C correctors have been assigned by some to the fifth, by others to the seventh century, and lack of comparative material enforces caution upon whosoever would decide between the two dates. The medieval D and E correctors are of slight importance.
p. 81 The latest desultory scribblings to which any neglected approximate date can be assigned seem to belong to the twelfth century; its complete neglect after that date is not surprising, as the manuscript could be deciphered only with difficulty by a reader accustomed to minuscule script with accents, breathings, and other lectional aids.
On p. 46 Skeat & Milne begin a section:
2. The C Correctors
As an example:
CPamph must be distinguished from Ca .... CPamph is demonstrably later in date
(This is not based on the script but internal considerations .. ie. circular to the 4th century theories)
On p. 50 there is one actual script note:
Cc* ....nothing to indicate his relationship to the other C hands. Probably he is a good deal later than any of them, as he freely uses the T ligature for OT, a form which seems not to occur before the eighth century, although its genesis may reach back to the seventh.
The section ends on p. 51. That is the only century reference.
================================
On p. 1 there is a very awkward spot about the three crosses note
a scribe of perhaps the seventh or eighth century ... has written three crosses and ...
In this weird theory the codex was used for c. 350 years, and then somebody put in a note about the way the production got messed up.
================================
p. 7, they put one the later numerations in the 8th century
p. 9 fourteenth-century Arabic foliation)
p. 65 As regards the correctors, the conclusions formed by Lake still hold the field. The A and B corrections we have shown to be contemporary with the manuscript, since they are attributable to the scribes of the text themselves. The C correctors have been assigned by some to the fifth, by others to the seventh century, and lack of comparative material enforces caution upon whosoever would decide between the two dates. The medieval D and E correctors are of slight importance.
p. 81 The latest desultory scribblings to which any neglected approximate date can be assigned seem to belong to the twelfth century; its complete neglect after that date is not surprising, as the manuscript could be deciphered only with difficulty by a reader accustomed to minuscule script with accents, breathings, and other lectional aids.
Last edited: