Monday, October 10, 2022

An interesting problem with the Editio Critica Maior (Mark 10.45)

15
So I was minding my own business and reading an article about Mark 10.45 (M. Thiessen, 'The Many for One or One for the Many? Reading Mark 10:45 in the Roman Empire' HTR 109 (2016), 447-466) when I stumbled on a footnote about the text of Mark 10.45 in Codex W (032):

Although ms W reads λούτρον (ablution) instead of λύτρον (ransom), it is likely that this reading arose due to an unintentional scribal modification. (note 11)

That sounded interesting, but when I checked NA28 it wasn't mentioned, so I checked the facsimile (as one does) and it was obviously correct:

 

Then I checked the ECM apparatus on Mark and I came across this:

OK. So 032r means that the editors have regularised an incorrect reading to an orthographically and grammatically correct form (p. 19*). But λούτρον is a perfectly good word, as the Cambridge Greek Lexicon tells us (and indeed it is a NT word, cf. Tit 3.5):

 

Now, it doesn’t seem like there is anywhere within the three ECM volumes where a reader can figure out what the actual reading of W032 actually is. You can go to the NTVMR and then you get the information you need:

Obviously I accept that even the most objective kind of resource is impacted by a multitude of editorial decisions, but I was a bit disappointed that for such an important manuscript of Mark ECM didn’t tell me about such an interesting reading. I wonder how many other interesting spellings have been “regularized” in potentially overly zealous ways.

15 comments

  1. One question I have is how often in this copy of Mark do we find the diphthong for the vowel. In some manuscripts it’s so common that it is undeniably obvious, in which case I would thank the editors for not wasting our time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. This specific spelling seems to be unique to this passage (according to H.A. Sanders, The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection. Part I The Washington Manuscript of the Four Gospels (New York and London: Macmillan, 1912), 21)

      Delete
  2. Did you check the supplementary volume? (Mine’s in the office.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is hard for me to get into your office.

      Delete
    2. So, it’s not in the supplementary volume. What I’ve just noticed is that the Mark volumes do not give the full list of error (Fehler) readings like the CL and Acts volumes did. That is a bit disappointing.

      Delete
    3. Also, the use of the “r” is new to the Mark volume.

      Delete
    4. Reg ≠ Fehler in ECM, Herr Gurry.

      Delete
  3. Is the picture from the ECM missing? Or is that just me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ECM doesn't come with pictures.

      Delete
    2. Says you! I invested in the full colour children's edition! The cartoon version of Vaticanus is really a sight to behold - it's made to look like Daniel, while all the Byzantine manuscripts are drawn as lions in the den...

      Delete
  4. The Center for New Testament Restoration has the variant as λουτρον.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jean Putmans10/13/2022 6:12 am

      I am not an ms-expert, but looking at the αυτου and the λουτρον I have the impression that the text has been corrected.

      AΥΛ > ΑΥΤ,
      ΛΟΥ > ΛΟ

      Delete
    2. It is true that something odd has happened to the text of W here. I wondered whether it was bleed through from the other side, but I don't think that explains it. It looks more like the imprint of wet ink from somewhere.

      Delete
  5. Das ist ‘ne blöde Auslassung im Apparat!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While it is a bit unfortunate, I wouldn't exactly call it 'blöd'. Stuff happens when you're working through masses of data. Speaking from experience!

      Delete