Posts Tagged ‘obelos’

May 3rd
2020
written by phil

Richard Fellows, “Are There Distigme-Obelos Symbols in Vaticanus?” New Testament Studies 65 (2019) 246-251 and Jan Krans, “Paragraphoi, Not Obelos, in Codex Vaticanus,” NTS 65 (2019) 252-257 deny the thesis of Philip B. Payne, “Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34–5,” NTS 63 (2017) 604-625. This Critique of Vaticanus Distigme-obelos Denials shows that these denials provide key evidence that, in fact, supports that Vaticanus distigme-obelos symbols mark where some manuscripts add a block of text.

May 1st
2019
written by phil

Priscilla Papers 33, No. 2 (Spring 2019) 24­-30 has just published my article, “Is 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 a Marginal Comment or a Quotation? A Response to Kirk MacGregor.” It demonstrates that Kirk MacGregor’s claim that 1 Cor 14:33b-38 is a “Quotation-Refutation Device” is false. It argues, instead, that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was originally written in the margin as a reader comment and was inserted into the text, as copyists normally did with text in the margin, either after verse 33 or after verse 40. It provides evidence that 14:34-35 was a marginal gloss from the oldest Bible in Greek, Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest Latin manuscripts, Codex Fuldensis, transcriptional probability, and internal evidence. It identifies all sixteen instances where Vaticanus’s original scribe left a gap in the text at the exact point at least four words were added. Four-or-more-word additions survive in multiple manuscripts on all seventeen distigme-obelos-marked lines. The two-dot distigme marks the location of a textual variant. The obelos identifies what kind of variant it is, a multi-word addition that was not in the original text.