Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Novum Testamentum 48.1 (2006): Archaic Mark

Wieland Willker observes that the latest edition of Novum Testamentum has now appeared and contains an article on ms 2427.


Margaret M. Mitchell and Patricia A. Duncan, 'Chicago's "Archaic Mark" (MS 2427): a Reintroduction to Its Enigmas and a Fresh Collation of Its Readings', Novum Testamentum 48 (2006) 1-35.


This article announces the public release via the Internet of a full set of interactive digital images of the University of Chicago's "Archaic Mark" (Gregory-Aland ms 2427; University of Chicago ms 972), an enigmatic miniature manuscript of the Gospel according to Mark. To foster further research into this curious illuminated hand-codex, we provide a history of research and critical appraisal of the complex questions involved in its dating—which has been placed as early as the 13th century, and as late as the early 20th century—and a fresh collation of its text, which supplements and corrects the readings heretofore available only in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition.




  1. Does it say anything about the asterisk-like mark setting of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark?

  2. Only a little. It says that segments of the text are marked by 'lozenges' which appear prior to 2.23; 3.1; 3.13; 3.31; 4.1; 4.35; 5.1; 5.21; 6.7; 6.14; 6.30; 6.45; 6.53; 7.1; 7.24; 7.31; 8.1; 8.22; 8.27; 9.2; 9.14; 9.30; 9.33; 10.1; 10.17; 10.32; 10.46; 11.1; 11.27; 12.41; 13.1; 14.1; 14.3; 14.10; 14.12; 14.26; 14.66; 15.1; 15.40; 16.9.
    It doesn't discuss the function of these 'lozenges', nor what a cough sweet is doing in a manuscript.

  3. Perhaps this is a symbol informing the lector of places where it is permissible to cough or clear his throat.

    BTW there is a h.t on the part of the modern scribes in the apparatus. Where it says 10:29, the text that follows is actually 10:29-30. I actually penned in a change to my Greek text before I caught it!

  4. Daniel Buck ~

    Yes. Also, at W. Willker's textualcriticism Discussion-Board, some time ago someone else mentioned the symbol between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. I replied by listing the various other occurrences of the same symbol which occur regularly throughout the manuscript. They correspond to divisions in the Byzantine lectionary pretty closely; you can consult the archives of WW's Discussion-Board to see how closely.

  5. (Urk; I'm still getting used to this comment-entry format. That last "anonymous" post was from me.

    James Snapp, Jr.)

  6. And I admit, I was the one who first brought it up on Wieland's list.
    Repetition is the key to learning.

  7. I personally found this article both very helpful and very frustrating. Like it says in the sub-title: Reintroduction to Its Enigmas! There is no attempt to solve any of the enigmas, it is basically clearing the ground for future reports on further research that remains to be done. The main feature of the article, the collation, is itself incomplete and only designed to supplement (and occasionally correct) the information in NA27. But that just means that anyone wanting to work on the text of 2427 has to compile a complete collation for herself, before beginning to work on it. Surely the Chicago folk must have done that, why not share it with everyone else?

  8. I should also say, that the on-line images are marvellous.

  9. "Surely the Chicago folk must have done that, why not share it with everyone else?"

    To save space--surely not much of a concern anymore when only electrons are involved!

  10. Stephen Carlson reports that he has solved the enigma of 2427 - it is basically a copy of the text of Buttmann's 1860 edition of the GNT. Looks pretty plausible to me. http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/

  11. So the lozenges, then, should trace back to a Byzantine or Armenian ms available to the forger (a lectionary)? I can't think of any printed eclectic text that would contain such.