'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book

[Steven Avery]

Here is what Burgon wrote on Sinaiticus, Campianus and Mark 15:28:
(and I may have misinterpreted, thinking that Campianus did not have the verse,)

Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292

Context Scrivener and the Constantine 50 per Eusebius

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered “216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains the phenomenon in Cod. M), against ver. 29 is set the number, (“ 216,”) instead of against ver. 28. But what then ? Has not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And which can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?]

The Tischendorf section is too arcane to be very helpful.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12592

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

The other one that is especially interesting as a shared quirk is from Dirk Jongkind and relates to the Eusebian canons in Matthew 16, the numbers and placement of 162-164, Jongkind says that Sinaiticus is akin to Campianus (!) again and Bezae.

[Steven Avery]

Here is what Burgon wrote on Sinaiticus, Campianus and Mark 15:28 and the Eusebian canons:
(and I may have misinterpreted, thinking that Campianus did not have the verse,)

Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292

Context Scrivener and the Constantine 50 per Eusebius

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered “216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains the phenomenon in Cod. M), against ver. 29 is set the number, (“ 216,”) instead of against ver. 28. But what then ? Has not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And which can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?]

The Tischendorf section is too arcane to be very helpful.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12592

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

The other one that is especially interesting as a shared quirk is from Dirk Jongkind and relates to the Eusebian canons in Matthew 16, the numbers and placement of 162-164, Jongkind says that Sinaiticus is akin to Campianus (!) again and Bezae.

[mlinssen]

Here is what Burgon wrote on Sinaiticus, Campianus and Mark 15:28:
(and I may have misinterpreted, thinking that Campianus did not have the verse,)

Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
John William Burgon
https://books.google.com/books?id=LtpJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA292

Context Scrivener and the Constantine 50 per Eusebius

1. But this, which is rendered improbable by the many instances of grave discrepancy between its readings and those with which Eusebius proves to have been most familiar, is made impossible by the discovery that it is without S. Mark xv. 28, which constitutes the Eusebian Section numbered “216” in S. Mark’s Gospel. [Quite in vain has Tischendorf perversely laboured to throw doubt on this circumstance. It remains altogether undeniable,—as a far less accomplished critic than Tischendorf may see at a glance. Tischendorf’s only plea is the fact that in Cod. M, (he might have added and in the Codex Sinaiticus, which explains the phenomenon in Cod. M), against ver. 29 is set the number, (“ 216,”) instead of against ver. 28. But what then ? Has not the number demonstrably lost its place? And is there not still one of the Eusebian Sections missing? And which can it possibly have been, if it was not S. Mark xv. 28 ?]

The Tischendorf section is too arcane to be very helpful.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12592

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

The other one that is especially interesting as a shared quirk is from Dirk Jongkind and relates to the Eusebian canons in Matthew 16, the numbers and placement of 162-164, Jongkind says that Sinaiticus is akin to Campianus (!) again and Bezae.

Well, [ETA: Sinaiticus Campianus] does have Mark 15:28, and the canon numbers are in both - and contradictionary

ϲιε
α is what Sinaiticus has for Mark 15:27: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Campianus has the same, for the same: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Then Campianus moves on to ϲιϛ for Mark 15:29, and Sinaiticus does likewise: Mark 15:28 doesn't get a number in Campianus

For fun, the combined diplomatic with Campianus highlighted

27ϲιε α
και ϲυν αυτω ϲταυ
ρουϲιν δυο ληϲταϲ
ενα εκ δεξιων κ(αι)
ενα εξ ευωνυμω
αυτου

28
Καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γρα
φὴ ἡ λέγουσα, Καὶ
μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλο
γίσθη

29ϲιϛ η
και οι παραπορευ
ομενοι εβλαϲφη
μουν αυτον κει
νουντεϲ ταϲ κε
φαλαϲ αυτων κ(αι)
λεγοντεϲ · ουα · ο
καταλυων τον
ναον και εν τρι
ϲιν ημεραιϲ

The canon numbers are different for verse 29: ϛ in Campianus, η in Sinaiticus

[Steven Avery]

Well, Sinaiticus does have Mark 15:28, and the canon numbers are in both - and contradictionary

Nope the text
καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη.
is not in Sinaiticus.
https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.ph ... rif2=15:28

Here is the CSP page:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0
In the transcription they jump from v. 27 to 29 reflecting the lacuna.

I just want to get that straightened out first .

[mlinssen]

Well, Sinaiticus does have Mark 15:28, and the canon numbers are in both - and contradictionary

Nope the text
καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα, Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη.
is not in Sinaiticus.
https://www.laparola.net/greco/index.ph ... rif2=15:28

Here is the CSP page:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0
In the transcription they jump from v. 27 to 29 reflecting the lacuna.

I just want to get that straightened out first .

You're absolutely right, I swapped the names. Corrected it now, ta

[Paul the Uncertain]

For those who might be interested, Ian Mills interviews Dr Coogan on aspects of the Eusebian apparatus in the most recent episode (#49) of the New Testament Review podcast. The podcast's home base is on soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-829560134

(you need to scroll down a bit to get to the most recent episode) and it is also available from several other podcast outlets.

[Steven Avery]

You're absolutely right, I swapped the names. Corrected it now, ta

We want to look closely at the spots where Campianus and Sinaiticus have similar quirks, misplacements.

This above is one Eusebian canon quirk involving Tischendorf and Burgon.

Dirk Jongkind in Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus refers to another one from Matthew 16:2-4.

I have some info here
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12600

Roger Pearce has a canon table index”
https://tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius ... les_01.htm

It would be helpful to have a readable manuscript that is basically without quirks, as a control.

[Steven Avery]

Sinaiticus Terminus Post Quem

One significant element of the Eusebian canons can be seen in Dirk Jongkind’s Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2013), which has a wonderful Eusebian canon analysis section.

Dirk notices numerous anomalies in the Eusebian canons in Sinaiticus that are the result of:

transmission history
corruption
conflation

Since the Eusebian canons are dated to the early 4th century, realistically we can estimate 200 years or more for these competing and conflicting and conflating transmission lines to occur.

This pushes forward the terminus post quem of Sinaiticus about two centuries from the current Tischendorf-inspired “scholarship-consensus” date,

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Steven Avery

======

Dirk Jongkind sections here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12692

[mlinssen]

Sinaiticus Terminus Post Quem

One significant element of the Eusebian canons can be seen in Dirk Jongkind’s Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2013), which has a wonderful Eusebian canon analysis section.

Dirk notices numerous anomalies in the Eusebian canons in Sinaiticus that are the result of:

transmission history
corruption
conflation

Since the Eusebian canons are dated to the early 4th century, realistically we can estimate 200 years or more for these competing and conflicting and conflating transmission lines to occur.

This pushes forward the terminus post quem of Sinaiticus about two centuries from the current Tischendorf-inspired “scholarship-consensus” date,

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

Steven Avery

======

Dirk Jongkind sections here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... post-12692

Jongkind's entire theory hinges on the assumption that a Caesarean Sinaiticus would have complied with the canon tables "in a better way" than it currently does, or does it?

I know from experience that it requires time for a system to settle, so deviations from the system would actually point further back in time. Every time I use KL, such gets demonstrated

[Steven Avery]

Two distinct issues are being jambalaya’d.

Dirk shows conclusively that lots of transmission had to occur between the beginning of the Eusebian canons and Sinaiticus.
250 years of transmission would be a good minimum.

He also uses that as a reasonable argument against a Caesarea AD 350 theory. With the terminus post quem of Sinaiticus moved to AD 600, the concern about Caesarea yes or no is obviated.