'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
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.
(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.
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:30 am 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.
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
Well, [ETA: Sinaiticus Campianus] does have Mark 15:28, and the canon numbers are in both - and contradictionarySteven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:30 am 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.
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
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
Last edited by mlinssen on Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
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 .
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
You're absolutely right, I swapped the names. Corrected it now, taSteven Avery wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 6:18 amNope 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 .
-
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
- Contact:
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
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.
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Eusebian canons move Sinaiticus terminus post quem up 200+ years
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
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
Re: Eusebian canons move Sinaiticus terminus post quem up 200+ years
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?Steven Avery wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:43 pm 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
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
-
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: 'Eusebius the Evangelist: Rewriting the Fourfold Gospel in Late Antiquity', book
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.
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.