Subject: Mark 1:41, further addendum

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:38:02 PST

In reply to Ulrich Schmid, when I said that the omission took place 
"early" in the history of the text, I meant, in a period when the 
text was written in narrow columns, as in 01, 03, 09, 011, 019, 021, 
024, 030, 038, 045, 0211, and 566. Because 01 and 03 are the earliest 
texts with which I work, they are "early" to me. But you make a good 
point. Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste says 09,  011, 021, 030, 038, 045 
and 566 are ninth century (I have a manuscript note in my copy, which 
is the 1963 edition, indicating that 0211 has been redated to the seventh
century). So there is no reason to suppose that the omission had to take
place "early," only that (1) it could have taken place by the fourth 
century -- we cannot, of course, assert that 01 and 03 were the first
manuscripts to be written in narrow columns merely because they hap-
pen to be the first such manuscripts to have survived -- and (2) it
certainly took place by the fifth century, the date of it(b), which omits 
the participle, as given in UBS4, p. 24*. 
     The omission in lectionary 866, written in 1174, may well be 
independent of that in it(b), a consideration which led me to examine 
all the manuscripts with narrow columns listed above, with the
following results:

01:         MEKAQARISAIKAI
              SPLAGCNISQEIS
              EKTINASTHNCEI  

03:        KAQARISAIKAISPLAG
             CNISQEISEKTEINASTH(N)   (EK under IK)

09:        KAQARISAI.ODE
            ISSPLAGCNISQEIS 
             EKTEINASTHN

011:      SAI.ODEISSPLAG
             CNISQEIS.EKTEI   (but EK is under PL)

019:      SAIMEKAQARISAI
           SPLAGCNHSQEIS
             DEOIS.EKTEINAS      

021:      SAI+ODEISSPLAGCNIS
             QEIS.EKTEINASTHN

024:      lacuna

030:      RISAI.ODEIS
            SPLAGCNISQEIS
             EKTEINAS 

038:     ODEISSPLAGC      (taken from a printed edition so
              NISQEIS'EKTH    vertical line up of letters uncertain)

045:      SAIMEKAQARISAI+O
             DEISSPLAGCNISQEIS
             EKTEINASTHNKEIRA

0211:   SAI.   ODEISSPLA   (space as shown)
           CNISQEIS.EKTEI     (T is under SP) 

566:     saimekaqarisai:
           odeissplagcnisqeis
            [end of column and page]
            ekteinasthncei

So a copyist may have omitted the participle by skipping a line in a
manuscript like 030, and that omission may have been transmitted to 
lectionary 866.
     Vinton A. Dearing