Roger Pearse

Exactly so. In the margin of the gospel are numbers, in ascending order. We flip over the leaves until we find one that has that number next to some text.

So the process to find a passage in Matthew which corresponds to that labelled i/b in the margin of a passage of Mark is:

1. i=10, b=2.
2. The lower figure is the canon table, numbered 1-10 at the start of the manuscript. Go to table 2.
3. The upper figure is the passage number in Mark. Go to the column for Mark and scan down it until the number '10' is found (which is on the second line, as it happens).
4. Now look along the row. In column 'Matthew' there is 21 (and in column Luke there is 32, if we wanted that).
5. To find the passage in Matthew that corresponds to our starting passage, open the manuscript and scan down the pages until we find a passage with a 21/2 (passage 21, canon table 2). And we are there.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

That is correct. You may be interested in the pages that Kevin P. Edgecomb has placed online relating to the Eusebian Canons. He has the ten tables along with the pericope listings according to the NRSV. I recommend printing them out (or making copies from a Greek New Testament) for easy reference.

This is a super thread. Wish I had time to participate.

Ben.

Buster Daily

Yes. Very interesting. I'm very new at both Greek and reading manuscripts. There's a lot of new info coming in for me without me having to ask. Here's a simple question. Why no spaces? Are there reasons other than the expense of the writing surface? I'm not complaining. At least the text is left to right, has vowels and transliterates to latin characters easily. It's a stroll in the park next to semitic stuff.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that this is confusing to me. The entry that reads περι του λεπρου is the fifth entry, not the second. I am unclear where the rest comes from.

Onto the next bit.

By 'left hand column' in the above, I presume you mean 'right hand column'? The second marginal capital in that case IS an alpha, and seems to correspond. (I have just spent 5 minutes looking around the wrong column before scrolling across more in hope than expectation...).

So we have a 'kephalaia' marker consisting of a Z over the marginal capital and an overscore over the character at which it starts. That's clear enough -- thank you.

But... how do we tell which bit of text in the table of kephalaia corresponds to which mark? I expect that they are in order; but that would be a problem if the scribe forgot a squiggle. Is there some kind of link back to the table?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

It's a feature of all ancient manuscripts, Latin or Greek. Why? It wasn't the custom. We who take all sorts of 'helps for the reader' like word division, punctuation, etc for granted need to remember that just because we are used to them doesn't mean anyone else feels the need.

The Romans did invent a system of punctuation in the 2nd century, but abandoned it later because the Greeks didn't use it. (from Reynolds and Wilson, "Scribes and Scholars").

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Buster Daily

Oh man. I read somewhere that the Cleveland Art Museum is closed for renovation. I hope I'm wrong. The Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA) has a nice little collection of armor and swords in their main hall if you ever swing by this way. I haven't actually been in the Cleveland Art Museum. We always end up doing the zoo/nat history stuff.

Roger Pearse

I think that this indicates major confusion. Perhaps I can explain what I do and do not understand, and perhaps we can clarify things?

1. We have at the front of the book a series of short sentences, preceded by a numeral, forming a table (like a modern table of contents). These, I think we have agreed, are the 'kephalaia'. There appears to be 47 lines in the table, if we allow those which are indented and marked with a '7' sign to be continuations (do people agree with my count?)

2. At the top of each column we have a heading, which is not the same as entries (although it may contain similar material) in the table in #1. These, I think we have agreed, are the 'titloi.' They are not the same in content or number as the kephalaia (?)

3. The kephalaia start-points are marked in the text with a Z over a capital and an overscore over the word which starts it.

4. The titloi, presumably, just give a rough idea of column contents, and have no start point in the text (?)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

When you say 'fifth entry' I am assuming you mean the κεφαλαια table. It is actually the fourth entry. Line four is a continuation of line three. If you look at the κεφαλαια listing you will notice that the third entry ends with a small horizontal line over the last letter ω which means it continues on the next line, if memory serves. You will also notice that the leper entry is marked by a Δ, i.e. the fourth entry. As for where I said 'second', I think I meant third. LOL. I am so confused. I think I meant that we have three swirly κεφαλαια marks on that page but only the Δ τιτλος at the top.
I apologize. It does look like I meant right, doesn't it? Don't know what happened there.
No link back. Kind of a crappy system. Forgetting a swirly wouldn't be a huge problem as you can simply look at the τιτλος at the top of the page to know where you are. Now finding the corresponding swirly mark, however, you will have to scan. And which one is it, if only one is listed at the top of the page? What if the scribe forgot it?

Julian

Roger Pearse

Image of last page of Mark's Gospel.

Buster Daily

Thanks for your reply Roger.

Your description reminds me of some "old school" programmers I used to work with. They would intentionally obfuscate their code and then arrogantly call anyone a moron that complained about the difficulty of reading it. I know from experience that well written code is easier for everyone to read...not just the "morons". Without stretching the metaphor too far, it seems like adding spaces and including something equivalent to a period would make the text easier for all readers. If obfuscation was the motive, it says a little about the psychology of the writers/readers.

Maybe the Greeks made fun of them. "Those Romans are soooo stupid. They can't read unless they have spaces between their words."