tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1451829970397757902..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Who did what?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-868656118368628112013-03-21T15:21:50.014+00:002013-03-21T15:21:50.014+00:00One minor observation: the erased area does appear...One minor observation: the erased area does appear to correspond to the length of κρινομε, but there is no remaining trace of a vertical stroke of the ρ--which clearly would descend well below the erased area if the now visible ρ is a good comparison (note how two of the rhos in the image descend far enough that they run into the text of the lines below). Zach Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16456948454432215909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35951041478140737342013-03-19T13:09:11.033+00:002013-03-19T13:09:11.033+00:00I was curious what Bob Lyon saw when he examined C...I was curious what Bob Lyon saw when he examined C back in the 1950's in his "A Re-Examination of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus" (St Andrews). Thought I would add a few data points to your analysis, as he examine the manuscript directly as well as using UV and infrared photos.<br /><br />Lyon interpreted the change in question being made by corrector one:<br /><br />"23.6 - εγω κρινομμε for --?. The original scribe apparently misspelled something." (p. 315) (Sadly, I don't know if the -μμε was Bob's original text, or if it was corrected/mis-typed by <i>his</i> corrector in the reproduction I am using!)<br /><br />His edition, however, shows it as "νεκρων (εγω κριν)ομε" (p. 170)<br /><br />He notes that the original scribe "rarely corrected his own text." His "erasing has not been done as thoroughly as the erasing by the first corrector." (xx)<br /><br />On the first corrector: "The stroke of his pen is not as heavy as that of the original scribe, nor is his script as elegant. Yet it is far from the slovenly manner of the second corrector. The letters are noticeably small - even when he has ample space-and commonly lean slightly to the right." (xxi)<br /><br />On the second corrector: "This corrector did much to mar the beauty of the manuscript. ... His writing is far from elegant." Mainly he added spirants, accents, punctuation marks, and liturgical notations. (xxiv) He also notes that the second corrector "either crossed out or encircled with dots what he wished to omit from the text." (xxi)pgardellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17906682730043234994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33876750895287349722013-03-19T12:55:09.210+00:002013-03-19T12:55:09.210+00:00Thanks Dirk,
It is always interesting to see where...Thanks Dirk,<br />It is always interesting to see where you are up to!<br />It strikes me that it would be unusual to delete the perfectly good KRINOME in order to write EGW KRINOME rather than simply correct either between the lines or at the end of the line. But I have no idea about C's normal methods for corrections. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com