Saturday, February 25, 2012

New Fragment of Mark Better than Codex Sinaiticus

John Bugay posted an item that led me to an interesting graphic purportedly of the new fragment of the Gospel of Mark, together with a transcript of Codex Sinaiticus.  Below, I've placed the letters found in the fragment in bold - the other letters are supplied from the transcript of Codex Sinaiticus.  Obviously, there are significant lacunae, but I've identified a single variant vis-a-vis Sinaiticus and highlighted it below.  The variant is untranslatable, because it is simply a clerical error (omission) in Sinaiticus, which we might speculate was due to the similarity in appearance between the epsilon and theta in the exemplar from which it was copied.  Since the fragment does not have error, it is better than Codex Sinaiticus.

(The starting place for the columns, especially for the first few lines, is speculative.  Mark 5:15-18 is shown.  I'm unaware of whether there is text on the opposite side of the manuscript fragment.)
καιηρχοντοπροϲτονιν
καιθεωρουϲιτονδαιμον
ιζομενονκαθημενον
ϊματιϲμενοκαιϲωφρον
ουντατονεϲχηκοτατονλ
εγιωνακαιεφοβηθηϲανκ
αιδιηγηϲαντοαυτοιϲοι
ϊδοντεϲπωϲεγενετοτω
δαιμονιζομενωκαιπερι
τωνχοιρωνκαιηρξαντο
παρακαλιναυτοαπελ
θειναποτωοριωναυτων
καιεμβαινοντοϲαυτου
ειϲτοπλοιοπαρεκαλει
αυτο
to the Glory of God, at

6 comments:

  1. John BugaySaturday, February 25, 2012 8:28:00 PM

    NA27 has ἀπελθεῖν; Codex Sinaiticus is missing the "ε", and the word in question means "to depart".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave HammondSaturday, February 25, 2012 9:28:00 PM

    Did you mean a new fragment from the Gospel of Mark rather than John?

    ReplyDelete
  3. KenMonday, February 27, 2012 3:22:00 AM

    "purportedly of the new fragment of the Gospel of John"

    I also thought it was Mark rather than John.

    You got it right later in the article:

    "Mark 5:15-18 is shown"

    ReplyDelete
  4. John BugayMonday, February 27, 2012 10:12:00 AM

    Jason Engwer has posted some comments by other scholars who are less than convinced that the photograph of the Mark fragment is an authentic one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. turretinfanTuesday, February 28, 2012 5:59:00 PM

    And in the title too ... (corrected the body of the post, with thanks).

    ReplyDelete
  6. turretinfanTuesday, February 28, 2012 6:03:00 PM

    :shrug:

    Hence the need for "purportedly."

    ReplyDelete

Comment Guidelines:

1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.

2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.

3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.

4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.

5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.

6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.

7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.

8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.

9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)

10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.